Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< 4 March	6 March >

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 Speedy deleted per G5 RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Charles Lipner

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

The references seem thin but there is possibility of notability so AfD is better. Others may pitch in to evaluate. Creator is blocked now. This is my first AfD so correct me if I did it wrong --203.175.67.197 (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. No opinion on the merits. ansh 666 06:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oh thanks--203.175.67.197 (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Creation of a blocked editor. Deny them the results of their disruptive and dishonest spamming. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so far I have only checked discography. It checks out. But I do not know about quality of references in article. --203.175.67.197 (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerwyn Williams (filmmaker, musician)

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

Delete. Poorly referenced article about a filmmaker and musician, with no strong claim of notability per either WP:CREATIVE or WP:NMUSIC. His notability as a filmmaker boils down to winning a short film award at a small film festival whose awards don't confer an automatic ANYBIO pass, and his notability as a musician seems to hinge on self-released music that was never released beyond his own social networking profile on MySpace. And for sourcing, all we have here is the MySpace profile, a brief namecheck of his existence in a non-notable directory entry for a non-notable band he was in as a teenager, and unspecified content in the "archives" of the film festival itself. Which means that we have zero sources here that could count toward getting him over WP:GNG for anything, and no notability claims compelling enough to grant him an exemption from having to be referenced better than this. And there's a possible conflict of interest here as well, because the article was created by a user named "TheNic" and the content includes a testimonial quote from somebody named Nic D'ea (with no explanation given of who Nic D'ea is or why we should care about his personal opinion of Williams). Wikipedia is not a place for people to eulogize their own friends and family — but there's just no substance or sourcing here on which to hang a proper Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An anon IP blanked the page and the Afd tag. Since it's unclear whether that was the article creator, neglecting to log in, I've restored the page content. If it is the same person, we could speedy this. I've raised the question on the article creator's user talk page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bello Sánchez

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

Non-notable person .Being a victim of a car accident is not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is pretty minimal except for accident, a one-time event that doesn't make him notable.Glendoremus (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His participation in reality television and modeling does not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--178.222.144.4 (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)(27.97.181.147 (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG,34 .Storvreta is a deleted article of, doesn't make him notable Sjorford (talk)
Delete or redirect to America's Next Top Model (cycle 22) - Extensively covered, but coverage is narrow in scope and not significant enough to ensure the subject meets WP:GNG. Linguist ^talk|contribs 23:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Dugan

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

Promotional article about a person who does not meet WP:GNG, created by a promotional sockpuppet. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, having a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robinbirk, this article was not "created by a promotional sockpuppet" but appears to have been created as part of an editathon. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near meeting the requirements for biographies of living people. Beyond that, a mention in an article on six recognized people in a local paper is not really enough to add towards GNG, and even if it was, GNG requires "multiple" sources, which means more than 1, and probably at least 3. Articles on living people need to meet GNG with the sources there, not just existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP She does have more articles written about her. I think the article should be improved with citations and when that is done, we will see that the article meets the criteria.--Sue Maberry (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only mentions of her in the news/books/web are routine promotional mentions in the course of performing her various jobs: "Anne Dugan, director of the ....". These sources talk about the galleries, not Anne Dugan. The article is also unfortunately written like a job resume to be handed out at the mall. I removed the long uncited "selected exhibitions section". 104.163.152.90 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with 104.163.152.90. Being mentioned as part of an article about something other than the person does not make one notable. Is she visible in the press? Yes. Does the press focus on her? No. Getting recognition from a relatively small town newspaper doesn't cut it either. There's just not enough to go on here, and a cursory review of news outlets does not show any promise of there being coverage available that can be tapped. WP:GNG isn't satisfied here. She might be notable by our standards some day, but not now. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as I'd forgotten that I tried this just last year. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kaiser (entertainer)

Delete. WP:BLP of a bit part actor and community activist, whose only evident notability is that he was given the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal in 2002. That does not represent an automatic pass of our notability standards in and of itself, however -- the award was presented to 46,000 people across Canada to honour voluntarism and community involvement, so while a winner might sometimes get over GNG on the notability and sourceability of the things they did to get one, the award itself does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on all 46,000 of them. And the only reference here is a deadlinked directory profile on Northern Stars, which is basically an IMDb for Canadian actors and not a source that confers notability in and of itself. There'd be a case for inclusion if he could be sourced over GNG for the acting or the community work, but all I can find on Google News or ProQuest is a few glancing acknowledgements of his existence in articles about other things -- and nothing here is an automatic notability freebie that would entitle him to keep a virtually unsourced article. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will userfy if someone wants to try to improve it. MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Movie Database

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

No significant, independent and reliable sources. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a fledgling website competing with a massive commercial market leader (IMDb), so it's hardly going to command an international news following, is it, given it's a db that aggregates data used by non-mainstream smaller operations. The links given clearly summate it's presence regardless of this. Jimthing (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are admitting that it is too early for this article to have notability, and hence that it is only here to promote the website? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth, you know full well what is meant by such a comment, without being trite about it. Jimthing (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the same what landed this site on the blacklist:spam. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim - all of the references are clearly not WP:RS, I'm sure you know that. The only one is (The Guardian), does not mention the subject. I wasn't able to find anything at all when searching, but that may be attributable to the fairly generic title of the site. Do you have anything at all that would meet our criteria? Kuru (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to me to meet WP:WEBCRIT at this time. What's more, it's creation by User:Travisbell would seem to be a very clear case of COI and self-promotion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the article history is a little complex. Travisbell wrote a fairly neutral userspace draft which he did not move to mainspace. It looks like it was copied, to some extent, by Jimthing into mainspace without attribution. Amortias then did a histmerge to set the attribution. Kuru (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the COI aside, he did write a very neutral draft. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm actually on Imdb and Tmdb and I find its more notable than most of the sites listed here including BMDb and Christian Film Database. If anything, it needs improvement and Travis Bell is the creator of the site but the article is very neutral and not at all promotional and its Alexa Ranking is way better than most listed in the category mentioned above. I'll put it on the same level as Douban (which i also contribute too) even though i do not understand a single word of mandarin or cantonese :P . The site has been mentioned in the media but because its non-commerical (like us), it gets a lesser mention than a site like, Imdb.COM so you can't really claim a site fails WP:WEBCRIT just because it does not promote itself well or at all.--Ste moc 02:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"it does not promote itself well or at all", you do realise that Travis Bell, the site owner, created the article himself, right? It indeed needs improvement, by addition of sources that show that it is notable enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse the owner of the site created it but was it promotion? does the site sell stuff?, does the site gain monetarily from being on wikipedia? does the owner of the site gain something from listing the site here? he could have paid someone to add an article here but he did it himself and it was indeed written well without a hint of it being promotional. I bet Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger never edited the Wikipedia article either..oh wait!, Larry (the so-called co-founder of wikipedia) created the article of "his" project on "his" project (lol)..There are many many others like this (where the owner of a site or product created an article on the said product/site here) and as i said above, the article needs improvement and a few more source information/citings and yes the site was definitely not eligible for inclusion back in 2008, it is now...Notability is gained through time and I can honestly say, compared to other similar articles linked above in that other category, the site is indeed notable.--Ste moc 04:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stemoc: You mentioned "the site has been mentioned in the media", could you link to some of those mentions? As noted above, I'm simply coming up blank in searches, but that may be due to the site's common name. Kuru (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stemoc, promotion can be achieved whether there is a product being sold or not. Non-profit groups can still promote. An individual can promote him/herself for the purpose of gaining attention. And those of us who have been alive long enough know that there have been many free internet services that achieved multi-million dollar appraisals, so the lack of a specific product for sale does not mean that promotion was not occurring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not gained through time or Alexa rating. Notability is gained through being noted in reliable sources, and so far this article has none. - MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted in my requests, I can't find any reliable sourcing. The references given in the article now are terrible: forum posts, directories, and a reddit discussion? The BBC and Guardian refs are to support the claim that the IMDB is dropping its forums, and do nto mention TMDB at all. I wasn't able to find anything else, and queries above were not answered. I don't see how this meets WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, and no policy based argument has been made. I'm glad that some people like the site; it is a nice endeavor. Kuru (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the condition a reliable source can be found. Emrabt (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a daily user of this site and a big OSS proponent, I can't believe Wikipedia has become so intertwined in its' policies that it would try to exclude a free solution like TMDb for such trivialities. Vmavra (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC) — Vmavra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So I gather a user's opinion is not worth a cent unless he has a certain status or privileges on this site. I was honestly thinking of contributing in the future, but if this is your general attitude towards new users I might have to reconsider. Also, you didn't even bother signing "your contribution". Vmavra (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No offense is intended, the SPA tag is standard in situations such as this one where external web forums are discussing an article's deletion. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still looks like an attempt to automatically belittle and discredit new users. No offense, @MrOllie: Vmavra (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vmavra: 'such trivialities' .. Vmavra, we have policies and guidelines that guide us to decide what is notable enough for inclusion. People saying that they are daily users is not enough. A bar has to be put somewhere, and our bar is that significant, reliable, independent sources must have noticed the existence and written about the subject. People with close contact with the owners of the site have not been able to provide us with those, nor have others who have commented here. The subject is not notable (yet). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft in the hope that additional references will become available. It's not a viable article at present--the references are simply too weak. Some are not in reliable sources, and others don't talk about the db at all. (And we have always defined "promotion" to mean advocacy ,commercial or non commercial, or any thing at all, even free projects) DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, there's German and Portuguese WP articles for TMDb, but potentially none for English-language speakers. While we understand the sources argument, I think some probation period is justifiable, as clearly the site exists and there are at least direct links to it that show it exists, its history/stats, and what it does. Jimthing (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITEXISTS. Jim, one of the other editors at TMDB hit the nail on the head: "Rather than a specific focus on SEO, it would probably be best to just keep focusing on improving the quality of data." At this point, more attempts at promotion are likely to be counterproductive, as will works of "commissioned" PR. If you're really trying to improve the site, focus inward and let the recognition happen organically. Kuru (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It sounds really interesting, and the flap over IMDB suddenly deleting their comments raises the ever-interesting censorship issue. These days, anything having to do with the rich of powerful keeping anyone else from having their say is in the headlines (fake news, anybody?). I can help repair the article, and if there's a rush (i.e., a deadline, then move it into userspace). Check out my user page for a few dozen of the hundreds of article I've started - and then had to rescue from the deletionists. Anything can be fixed. Don't delete it, unless editing has ceased and everyone's simply given up on whipping it into shape. Thanks for listening. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can help repair the article – please do go ahead and edit away. Any further editing is welcomed. Jimthing (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my previous comments above. Jimthing (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimthing: You have already voted keep once so you need to strike through this post. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up that ping so post this one @Jimthing:. MarnetteD|Talk 01:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been relisted, so not the same AfD. Jimthing (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been listed at other wikiprojects not relisted. At least the closing admin will be aware of that you voted twice. MarnetteD|Talk 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." Jimthing (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEBCRIT. There does not seem to be any significant coverage in reliable sources so the only other criteria that can potentially mitigate its existence is if it has received independent recognition per WP:WEBCRIT. Also, please note that it is policy bases rationales that count, not votes. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. It is possible that it will meet that criteria one day. If that happens it can be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with regret. I want an open competitor to IMDb, and wish TMDB success; but I don't see this fledgling website as getting sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia notability requirements. I hope to see the site is successful, and therefore gets coverage and merits an article, but it's too soon. TJRC (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft so this article can continue to be worked on as independent, significant, and reliable sources become available. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP - there is some good, eventually source-able, content in this article which could be developed and improved. Also, there is not currently consensus on either side of this discussion, which has already continued for an extended period. - tucoxn\^talk 17:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my previous comments. Sure, maybe a lack of high-end sources in relation to its use purely as a website a la IMDb-type usage, but the information that is gathered via the site does nonetheless form a major component as part of both media management software (e.g. Plex, Kodi, et al.), and as a component of other online sites data (e.g. Letterboxd et al.) and software management (themoviedb.org/apps ). There are a great many things both on and off WP that won't/haven't received massive press attention, because they are technical things that do not necessarily make for great reporting subject matter. To reiterate, it's been around a decent amount of time, since 2008, and has been running successfully ever since, as evidenced by its continued usage on said other platforms for their data usage. And there are quotes in there from some of these sites, evidencing its existence and usage as a data source. Jimthing (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Amitay Sadovsky

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

Appears to be the subject's CV. None of the article's "references" are independent. Fails WP:PROF/WP:GNG as there are no apparent reliable sources (at least, not online) that establish the subject's notability in general or as an academic. Brycehughes (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The listing of which gallery represents her just makes this way too promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She clearly passes WP:CREATIVE by exhibiting in known museums and major galleries in Israel. The article definitely is copy paste of here CV and need significant rework and improvement, but no doubt she is notable. I am trying to remove CV look and promotional tone at least Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In order to meet WP:CREATIVE they need to either have a permanent exhibit or be a major part of the temporary display at a main stream museum. Since the article gives no indication that either is true, I do not believe they meet the minimum requirements. - Galatz ^Talk 14:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And she exhibited in mainstream museums, which is indicated in the article: Haifa Museum of Art, Janco Dada Museum in Ein Hod, The Artist House in Tel Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum, Ashdod Museum of Art. So, why delete? Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of WP:CREATIVE that I feel is applicable is #4 which states The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (a) I see no significant monument, (b) which of those exhibits were significant they a substantial part of? I see no mention of that in the article, (c) I see no RS showing significant critical attention, (d) what are the permanent collections within a notable gallery or museum? Being as none of this has been clearly stated in the article I have no reason to believe any of it is true. - Galatz ^Talk 15:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This part says either - it does not require all of them to be satisfied. And you don't see this part in list of group and solo exhibitions? It's clearly there. Museums where she was part of group exhibitions and the solo exhibitions in the Open Museum. Also, I just noticed the The Ann and Ari Rosenblatt Prize for Visual Art, she received in 2016 makes her pass 4c as well as 4b Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I've found is that her works are part of permanent collection of Janco Dada Museum in Ein Hod and Open Museum. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And one more - 2012 Ministry of Israeli Culture and Sports prize is the second most prestigious cultural award in Israel after Prize Israel. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that WP:ARTIST requires that they need to either have a permanent exhibit. That would be an extraordinary hurdle to overcome. As far as I'm concerned, 4b, 4c and 4d are met. Keep. Mduvekot (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 11:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth-Canton Marching Band

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

Fails WP:ORG. A very selective merge to the school may be appropriate. All secondary sources are local. John from Idegon (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:BAND with significant coverage in numerous RSes, has won or placed 2nd or 3d in numerous competitions. This was kept in the previous AfD and it appears there is nothing new to suggest a different outcome. Gab4gab (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:BAND is not the applicable guideline here. As a high school music group, the primary goal is education, not performing. WP:ORG is clearly the applicable guideline, and there is no indication this group has been recognized outside Metro Detroit. And yes there has been significant change in the community's view on notability since 2007. ORG didn't even exist in 2007. This is a bloated article, filled with intricate detail most likely of little interest outside of people already connected with the subject, and largely meaningless outside the US. John from Idegon (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A review of past AfDs regarding marching bands indicates there is no consensus regarding the applicable guideline. Consensus has been reached based on GNG, ORG and BAND (& probably others). ORG did in fact exist back on 2007. At the time of the previous nom of this band it was an English Wikipedia notability criteria. Notability is based on existing sources, not the current state of an article. Gab4gab (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as Gab4gab says, there is little consensus on the notability of marching bands. DrStrauss talk 13:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. there may be little consensus on the notability of marching bands, but this one is clear enough. No first place in a national competition; any number of runner up positions are not the same as coming in first. No apparent influence on the field in general.Absurd article, of no interest to anyone outside of the school. Extensive uncited material, most of it based upon mere opinion, such as: " however, the inclusion of this controversial pocket had gained widespread use as a holder of loose change". No notable alumni. No visible references outside the immediate area. No reason to expect there would be any. An opinion saying keep, because there's no consensus of standards is not an argument for keep, as it gives no reason that applies to the article in question. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way back when, I was in my award-winning high school marching band (which I see is still winning awards, Go Cardinals!). But, really, it's a high school band. I don't see anything in the article that makes me think it's anything more than that. I agree that WP:BAND does not apply here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of coverage in reliable sources is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. At that point, whether it passes WP:BAND is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is arguing that. However, it does not meet ORG, which it would need to for notability. John from Idegon (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meeting WP:GNG is sufficient even if it doesn't meet a specific, more narrow guideline. The WP:ORG page even notes that pages can meet the general notability criteria instead. So I'm not sure what your point is. Smartyllama (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, SL, but you are mistaken. The only mention of GNG under ORG is that schools can be notable by simply meeting GNG. This is not a school, it is an organization within a school. Clearly GNG does not apply. John from Idegon (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is the "general notability guideline". It does not apply only to organizations, companies, schools or bands. It applies to every article. There are many cases where a given thing X fails the notability guideline for that subject area yet passes GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at WP:BAND we see that the guideline applies to "orchestras". Ok, this marching band is not an orchestra. But, it is every bit as large. I fail to see how an instrumental group of the same size as a typical orchestra doesn't qualify under WP:BAND simply because it uses instrumentation that is different than a typical orchestra. Reading WP:BAND, we see it says such ensembles may be notable if the ensemble "has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." The Grand National Championship run by Bands of America is "most prestigious national marching band event available to high school marching bands". I can't see any reason for doubt that this championship would not qualify. The band for discussion here has won this national level competition not once, not twice, but THREE times, tied for second most ever. They've been 2nd twice, and 3rd twice. Any one of these 7 national level placings would have them qualify under WP:BAND. Yet, they've done it _7_ times. How many times does a band have to do this before they are notable? I was concerned about WP:AUD, but note coverage outside of their region with this, and others. I also note that finding a massive number of results is likely complicated by the band's last top three placing being in 2001...a decade and a half ago. I believe with the sources provided and available that WP:GNG is readily met (and yes, WP:GNG applies), as well as WP:BAND and WP:AUD. This article is badly, badly in need of a rewrite. There's a serious amount of puffery and fluff here. I mean seriously, discussing a third pocket being removed from the uniform and noting very little media attention over the event? Really? Regardless, the sad state of an article is NOT a reason to delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Blanchard

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

Speedy Deletion WP:A7 declined despite no credible claim of significance in the article. Subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added women artists project to article talkpage so that participants are notified of afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete She comes no where close to meeting any of the notability requirements for artists. No indication that any institution has included her work in a permanent collection. The people's choice award she won is no where near notable. She is a non-notable local artist whose bio may well be the result of an edit a thon conducted by people who really should have spent more time trying to understand that Wikipedia is not the place to engage in boosterism to try and make your town seem the next major up and coming art hub.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's entirely non-notable. Non-existents refs, accomplishemnts listed are routine. 96.127.243.41 (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, does not meet notability. --Theredproject (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom/Johnpacklambert.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 19:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duluth Art Institute

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

Promotional article about a subject that does not meet The General Notability Guideline. Speedy Deletion WP:G11 declined. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Duluth Art Institute is a 110-yr-old non-profit arts and cultural institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alizarinc8 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've expanded the article a bit and think there is enough sourcing for this to meet GNG. Some of the sourcing is regional and/or paywalled, but there are several non-regional articles from reliable sources that address the organization in depth. Its history goes back to the 19th century and there look to be plenty of articles in newspaper archives. The organization was previously known under a couple of different names, which helps to find historical articles. The University of Minnesota also holds material in its archives and special collections that can be used as an additional source. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple sources going back several decades are available, in both news and Google books. Since it is over a hundred years old, print sourcees are very likely to exist as well. Meets GNG easily just on the Google books and Newspaper refs. It would be pretty hard to be a public institution for over century and not have a decent amount publicity.96.127.243.41 (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources exist to base an article on. Mduvekot (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Warshak

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

Lots of sources, but most are to the subject's books. I have been unable to find much independent coverage; lots of Google hits but all are to sources connected to the subject, or blogs. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to the entry on me. I would like to provide the sources that the article needs, but as the subject of the article my understanding is that I should not be the one to do such edits.

“I dream of horses” indicated that a citation was needed for the statement that the Warshak dissertation “was the first study to directly compare children growing up in father-custody homes to children growing up in mother-custody homes.”

A source for this statement can be found if you Google: santrock warshak journal social issues. The first hit is to an article cited by 392. This journal article was based on my dissertation. The beginning of the journal article reviews the literature at that time and demonstrates that my dissertation study was the first study to directly compare children growing up in father-custody homes to children growing up in mother-custody homes. Thus, the reference for this statement in the paragraph under Career is that 1979 article. The full reference for that article can be found as the first reference in the section: Selected publications: Scientific articles.

The instructions on this page indicate the need for “Find sources” and includes NYT. I authored an amicus brief that was influential in the decision made by the California Supreme Court. The New York Times published an article mentioning my work and quoting me in their Sunday, Front page of Section 1 article on the landmark case. Here is a link to this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/nyregion/divorced-parents-move-and-custody-gets-trickier.html?_r=0

Footnotes 46-48 include links to three Time magazine articles that quoted me.

Footnote 28 links to an article by the Hague Conference on Private International Law that refers to one of my journal articles as one of the “three most cited articles” on the subject. The link is still active and footnote 72 of the article on page 13 includes the quote about “three most cited articles.”

I would be glad for any part of the entry on me that does not reflect a neutral point of view to be amended, and I would also be glad to provide any sources that you think would improve the entry.

For instance, Melcous made a number of improvements to the page. He or she also removed the statement that I served as a White House consultant on family law reform. This is fine with me, although I do think this information is relevant to the entry. For a source, see page 86, paragraph 3 of the pdf file accessed on this page http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED386269.pdf The document mentions my name as meeting with White House Assistant Domestic Policy advisor Bill Galston. At that meeting I was one of only three participants who were invited to deliver summaries of the scientific literature to guide family law reform. If it would help, I may be able to locate the letter in my files from the White House thanking me for the consultation.

I apologize if my comments above do not fit proper Wiki style and, again, I appreciate that you have taken the time to review the article. Naturally I hope that you will decide to keep the article and I will be glad to provide any needed sources.Rawars (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep GS h-index of 22 in highly cited field of pop-pschology may pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:AUTHOR; high library holdings for multiple books: WorldCat Identities. Here are some reviews:

Book Review Divorce Poison: Protecting the Parent-Child Bond from a Vindictive Ex. by Richard A. Warshak, New York: Regan Books/Harper Collins, 2002, ...

Goldin, Eugene;Murphey, Joann

American Journal of Family Therapy, Oct 01, 2003; Vol. 31, No. 5, p. 445-449

Reviews the book "Divorce Poison: Protecting the Parent-Child Bond From a Vindictive E... more

A Review of 'Divorce Poison: How to Protect Your Family from Bad-Mouthing and Brainwashing'.

Worenklein, Abe

American Journal of Family Therapy, Oct 01, 2010; Vol. 38, No. 5, p. 440-441

The article reviews the book "Divorce Poison: How to Protect Your Family from Bad-Mout... more

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G5 . Materialscientist (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Fasting Day

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

Only references are 'self-published' either on their site, or youtube. No GNews hits for 'World fasting Day', and the prose itself states it was founded by a high school student, but no other assertion of notability. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Lousy sourcing. Same article was first created by User:Worldfastingday (talk · contribs) (probably the high school student), then speedy deleted. That account was blocked as promotional. Then very shortly thereafter the article was created again by Thebookworm24 (talk · contribs), whose account was created (surprise!!) minutes before creating the article. Then (surprise again!!) Mz.Wiz (talk · contribs) and Kingrogeres (talk · contribs) accounts were created just in time to oppose deletion. Sundayclose (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: and I think they've forgotten what account they're logged into - they just agreed with themselves [1] - Happysailor ^(Talk) 23:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. And add to the probable socks of the blocked account Jason the nerd87 (talk · contribs) and Kingrogeres (talk · contribs). Ah, I see that's already covered at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thebookworm24. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castle thunder (sound effect)

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

No reliable sourcing found. Sources in article are a video and a personal website. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources added; appears that sufficient coverage exists to satisfy WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 07:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above; reliable sources have been found and incorporated into the article. Due to the pages' size, however, I would not be against merging the links in Template:Stock sound effects into one article, but all of their content must be kept. Modernponderer (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as my nom.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Unlike with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016, there are no editors here advocating deletion. Since Cunard makes a good point (without opposition) that the proposed merge target is not suitable (or rather a merge at all is not the correct way to go), there is no consensus whether to merge at all and if so, where to. But a merge can be discussed at any time and this AfD does not create a precedent to keep this article in the current form. So Why 10:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008

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

This speech is not notable on its own. The election victory was notable. There is incredibly little in this article in terms of actual analysis of what was said, or that wouldn't be better off discussed at the appropriate articles, such as United States presidential election, 2008 and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016 for a comparable discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008; not independently notable and much of the content is uncited and / or original research. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history (if at all). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. For the same reason I voted to redirect Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016: most sources are about the victory itself and not the speech. The speech is not sufficiently notable; the victory is. κατάστασ η 20:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Speeches of Barack Obama with a mention at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. As above. Neutrality^talk 20:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to speeches of Barack Obama per nom. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was an event rather than a speech.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. I think this victory speech was probably more notable than most during presidential campaigns given the broader cultural implications of the first African-American president, but the speech on its own might not be able to stand. South Nashua (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016 immediately below. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016 and Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 or delete both or redirect both, because both have approximately the same amount of WP:RS and seem of equal significance/insignificance. I think it would make us look unfairly biased to keep one and not the other. I am open to changing my mind if I can be convinced the Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 was more significant than this one. I personally don't think either speech was significant or worth the time it takes to listen to, but we have to decide based on the WP:RS and not our own opinions, so I'm going more with the comparable WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of significance: Richard Nixon's "I am not a Crook" speech has to be more significant, and we do not have an article on that. We do have Richard_Nixon's_resignation_speech. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand why this is even an issue. There are 25 sources on the article, most of them from top news sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, ABC, CNN, and so on. It was obviously covered everywhere, and the fact that this was the first time a person of African descent had been elected the leader of the US (or, indeed, any major majority-white nation) is significant. Perhaps the article doesn't have in-depth analysis, but why does it need to? It covers what was deemed worth reporting at the time, such as the references made and the context. When the lack of articles for other speeches is brought up, it just makes me think that, yeah, there should be a page for the "I am not a crook" speech and such. Brettalan (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Brettalan: "the fact that this was the first time a person of African descent had been elected the leader of the US (or, indeed, any major majority-white nation) is significant" Yeah, and that's all covered at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and United States presidential election, 2008 and is quite separate from his victory speech, which received a little coverage, but not enough to justify an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is everyone urging for deletion so old (or so young) that they can't recall the widespread, ongoing coverage? Bearian (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: We all remember the election coverage, but we don't see evidence of "widespread, ongoing coverage" of the speech. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the speech received widespread coverage, so it meets notability criteria. The article is a non-stub, with 24 cited references from good quality sources. This article cannot be merged without losing material. Maintaining a low-level detailed article on the speech as well as higher-level articles on the 2008 election and Obama's speeches is in keep with Wikipedia's summary style. I don't see a rationale for deletion other than deletion for deletion's sake.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Berry, Mary Frances; Gottheimer, Josh (2010). Power in Words: The Stories Behind Barack Obama's Speeches, from the State House to the White House. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 080700104X. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
  The book notes:
  
  When CNN flashed the news over giant video screens in Grant Park, the crowd erupted in cheers. A television camera caught a glimpse of Oprah Winfrey and Jesse Jackson; both had tears running down their cheeks. Within minutes, at around eleven, Obama received congratulatory calls from Senator McCain and President George W. Bush. In the New York Times, Adam Nagourney wrote, "People rolled spontaneously into the streets to celebrate what many described as ... a new era in a country where just 143 years ago, Mr. Obama, a black man, could have been owned as a slave." He called Obama a "phenomenon" and referred to his election as "a national catharsis".
  Obama's acceptance speech was a stem-winder. The Obama writers had outdone themselves—and they'd done it as a team. Favreau penned the first half, and the entire group, including Adam Frankel, Sarah Hurwitz, and Ben Rhodes, wrote the remainder together.
  It was a sober statement. Given the grave economic crisis, Obama did not want pageantry and bombast. He didn't want to spend those sacred minutes crowing. So, despite the evening's $2 million price tag, there were no fireworks, as some had hoped for, and no recount of the landslide. Instead, Obama framed the moment and discussed its significance. He reached out to those who hadn't voted for him—and let them know that he would be their president, too. Obama knew that would be the key to his success as commander in chief; he was now the president of all Americans.
  Obama declared, "It's been a long time coming, but ... change has come to America"—an allusion to the Sam Cooke song "A Change Is Gonna Come." He spoke about Ann Nixon Cooper, a 106-year-old African American woman, who voted that day in Atlanta, as representative of that change. In her lifetime, Cooper had seen Pearl Harbor and Selma, but she never thought she'd see a black president. Just minutes before Obama declared victory, Favreau hid underneath his desk to find a quiet spot and called Cooper. She couldn't believe her ears when he told her that the president-elect would talk about her experience in his victory speech. Change had come.
  Obama also spoke of the travails ahead, acknowledging the onerous challenges he was inheriting. Too many Americans had lost their jobs, their savings, and their homes; millions more were without health care. Brave soldiers were risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama knew that "our union [could] be perfected." But it wouldn't be easy. Echoing Martin Luther King's "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech, Obama insisted, "The road ahead will be long, our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year, or even in one term—but America, I have never been more helpful than I am tonight that we will get there."
2. Alter, Jonathan (2010). The Promise: President Obama, Year One. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 38–39. ISBN 1439154082. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
  The book notes:
  
  It was time to give his speech. Barack Obama summoned Axelrod, who jogged to catch up to him in the tunnel as he strode toward the stage. "I just wanted you to know," Obama said, "there was a good fireworks display planned, but I killed it. Too frivolous for the times."
  Within minutes he and his family stepped forward, separated from the entire world by two-inch-thick bullet-proof glass. He began by savoring the historic "defining moment":
  If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founds is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. ...
  It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.
  But he made a point of emphasizing the long struggle to come:
  I know you didn't just do this to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime—two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.
  Out in Grant Park 250,000 people were more interested in the history than the challenges ahead. They celebrated with no arrests, which was almost unheard-of on festive occasions in the city. For older Chicagoans the location had a special resonance. In 1968 police had clubbed antiwar demonstrators across Michigan Avenue from the Conrad Hilton Hotel, the same area of Grant Park where Obama now gave his victory speech. The violence at that year's Democratic National Convention split the Democratic Party and helped elect Richard Nixon, who came to personify an ugly chapter in the American story. Forty years later the party's wounds seemed finally healed and some of Chicago's tortured racial history joyously transcended, at least for one night. Retired cops and long-ago hippies and their children and grandchildren all gathered in the park, this time on the same side of the barricades.
3. Maxon, Seth; Stahl, Jeremy (2017-01-10). ""Hell Yes, I Remember That Moment". In 2008, hundreds of thousands gathered in Chicago's Grant Park for Barack Obama's victory speech. Here's how a few of them felt about Obama then, and feel about America today". Slate. Archived from the original on 2017-03-05. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
4. Rahman-Jones, Imran (2016-11-09). "Trump v Obama: How their victory speeches compare". BBC. Archived from the original on 2017-03-05. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
5. Snowdon, Kathryn (2016-11-09). "Barack Obama And Donald Trump Acceptance Speeches Seen Side-By-Side, Eight Years Apart". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2017-03-05. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge per Wikipedia:Summary style. There is sufficient material in the article to justify a standalone article. It would be undue weight to merge everything in Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.
Cunard (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains numerous 2008 news sources already in the article. I have provided news articles from 2016 and 2017 that discuss Obama's 2008 victory speech. I have also provided two 2010 book sources that discuss it.
Cunard (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, in my opinion, an undisputedly notable, speech of the first African American President's election victory. Sources do in fact highlight this as a specific speech. It is independently notable of his election campaign. The speech has been analyzed by academics and is therefore notable as well. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I and others have disputed that, so it's not "undisputed". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is my opinion. AfD votes are opinions based on the guidelines created to determine whether or not a subject is notable for independent coverage. I believe speeches which have been analyzed by linguists and academics are notable. When specific segments of a speech are compared to others it may by notable. I believe that the first victory speech of the first African American president should be clearly notable for independent coverage. I hope that clarifies any misunderstanding. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's verifiably false this is "undisputed" as I and others have disputed it. But this is a digression I will not continue. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazaleh Khodabandelou

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

No evidence of notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Citations in Google Scholar [2] far too low (in a high-citation area of CS, itself a high-citation field) for WP:PROF#C1, and a best-paper award, while praiseworthy, is too commonplace to count as the kind of "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" asked for in #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOWish keep.. Consensus isn't going to change, safe to close a few hours early. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bedrich Benes

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Conference Chair is not the same as that of a university department. Brycehughes (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the page has been significantly extended - coverage in Nature, Scientific American, and in the news. Gfxnut (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. Google scholar [3] lists him as fourth most highly cited among the researchers who list "procedural modeling" as one of their specialties, although he is much lower down on the lists for computer graphics or geometric modeling. He's a full professor at a good research university. And he has five publications with over 100 citations each, probably enough for WP:PROF#C1. And Eurographics chair, although not enough for notability by itself, does indicate some confidence in him by his peers in the same research area. But although I think it's above threshold, it's a pretty marginal case. Except for one Scientific American blog post apparently on his "Stress Relief" paper (in which he is in a middle positition among five non-alphabetical authors) I didn't find much in the way of independent sources describing him or his works in any significant depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)(27.97.181.147 (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The news and Sources clearly stated the importance.31.Björklinge is previously deleted article,but now added reliable sources Sjorford (talk)
Keep. Just passes WP:Prof in a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- In addition to the above arguments, I'm seeing news coverage / commentary on his work. I don't see a reason to delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For whatever it's worth (probably little), I don't think the A7 decline was unreasonable. However there is a clear consensus here that Holcombe does not meet our notability guidelines. Jenks24 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Holcombe

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

Contested speedy deletion. Non-notable academic per WP:NACADEMICS. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 20:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He appears to have dropped out of academia to become a middle school teacher [4]. And before then he taught at the university level with a master's degree for ten years rather than making even the minimal mark on scholarship that it would take to produce a PhD. So academic notability seems out of reach. And while it is not impossible to become notable as a middle school teacher, it would take extraordinary accomplishments that aren't visible here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, did you see the A7 removal by Adam9007? I believe that user doesn't know what A7 is (and thus we are wasting our time here). Anyway, this is an obvious delete for all the reasons mentioned above--basically, doesn't pass PROF, doesn't pass GNG. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the ignorance of some editors, we owe the subject the respect of giving actual explanations for why he is not worthy of an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will continue to update the page. as stated by Adam9007 A7 doesn't apply. Additionally, Authorship of a paper published by The Office of Research Integrity further substantiates the claim. This should never have been marked for speedy deletion. Also - shouldn't have to be stated, but - there's no need for insults or name calling. Trailmixers (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Trailmixers, that paper--you linked a PDF without any publication information. I assume this is in reference to United States Office of Research Integrity? Since this is not a peer-reviewed publication (it seems), and since there is no secondary information that argues that somehow this paper is important, there is no way in which it can help notability per WP:PROF. In addition, a bit of poking around brings me to this, which makes me think that this is a UAB-run project, not the national club, even further diminishing its worth in regards to notability. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No argument from me that the article requires further development. Notability tag was completely reasonable. Deletion proceedings were premature. Article still under development. Trailmixers (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trailmixers: Considering the fact that this article originally was about a completely different person whose surname you mis-spelled when you created it, I'm not sure how much development this article needs - after all, you've only created it to over-ride the redirect that was put in place when you created an article about a non-notable musician. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another baffling CSD decline from Adam9007, with the rationale "Teaching at a notable university is an indication of importance/significance" - no it bloody well isn't. The GNG isn't met, WP:PROF isn't met. Once again, editors' time is being wasted when an A7 Speedy would have been appropriate. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Exemplo347 your hostility toward opposition is fascinating. A7 is an extreme measure, and wildly inappropriate. Trailmixers (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. Speedy Deletion isn't an extreme measure, it's a routine part of Wikipedia's integrity procedures and it's not something to take personally. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adam9007 we don't have the time to do the research needed to prove this person is notable. What I would suggest is that you put this in your sandbox and work on it until it is completely done, then ask for someone more senior to review it and try again. IMO don't publish the page live and attempt to work on it, that's the quickest way to get the page deleted. Finish, Review then Publish. Good luck to you, keep trying, but for the moment, there isn't evidence that it is ready.Sgerbic (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the article's creator. Adam9007 (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any decent sources to salvage this. Adam9007, when you're faced with an AfD that's not going your way, you roll up your sleeves and improve the article, or you concede that deletion is the correct outcome. Attempt to torpedo the deletion process without bothering to improve the article is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Stop it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: The article was actually created by Trailmixers not Adam9007. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@Exemplo347: Yes, that was kind of my point. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All Adam9007 did was to remove an A7 speedy tag because he felt that being a university instructor was a sufficient claim of significance to skate by on that criterion. That looks like a completely normal piece of the deletion process to me. In what way is it disruptive? Exemplo347, Drmies, Trailmixers, and others should note that judging something to not be eligible for A7 speedy is not the same as (and not supposed to be the same as) a judgement that the subject is actually notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might have got my wires crossed actually, and misread Adam's comment of "I'm not the article's creator" as trying to brush off any concerns about notability as not his problem, as opposed to just saying they were responding to the wrong editor. I decline A7s all the time with a summary of "decline speedy, try PROD / AfD" and many do indeed end up there, so to complain specifically about that would be the pot calling the kettle black. Sorry about that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: It's partly my fault: I ~~could~~ no, should, have made my meaning clearer. But yes, I did mean the latter. Adam9007 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I would probably have declined A7 too with a rationale of "decline A7, some sources, vague claim to PROF, try AfD". Might have even started the AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm the article creator. I have added sources, a few other updates, and will continue to do so. Happy to discuss any/all feedback to improve the article, but this discussion has been largely unapproachable from my position. All of which could have been avoided if someone could have simply used the talk page..... Trailmixers (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

commentwith that, WP:Prof#C4 is met. Published papers used as a basis for ORI training programs Trailmixers (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you confirm which specific numbered criteria under WP:NACADEMICS you believe has been met? The Admin who will close this discussion after the specified period will need to see this. Exemplo347 (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sure. I fixed it. Do i have to request a review? Trailmixers (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This particular discussion will be closed by an uninvolved Admin, when they personally feel the discussion has gone on long enough for a consensus to be reached - it'll be a minimum of 7 days, and I've known them to go on for a few weeks if necessary. A request for early closure will probably be ignored - it's important that as many people as possible have a chance to participate. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thats reasonable. ok sounds good. thanks. Trailmixers (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeek

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

Still unchanged company advertising as the history shows, which also shows 1 suspiciously active IP, 92.20.196.186, adding only what the company would advertise to its clients and it happens to be geolocated near the company, so that itself shows no one has successfully improved the article beyond despite assurances about it, and also considering the past attempts; joining the past SPAs, the forementioned IP, Ymd2014, Nicoleblanckenberg, Eyaladam0 and Yofisimon, all suggestively showing employee accounts. To analyze the current sources: 1-5 are all clearly labeled company-POV announcements (including the supposedly best coverage), 6 is an empty link, 12 is actually the same link as #2 before and 7-11 & 13-17 and 19-22 are all labeled funding achievements and advertised columns. None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH which states: [Unacceptable sources are] Brief announcements, simple statements, press releases, anything by or for the company, or where it talks about itself, wherever published", and although searches here and here found links, the majority of them are simply fitting the above "unacceptable" criteria, even when considering the few stories about the CEO's imprisonment; closely analyzing each page simply found immediate changing to 2012, showing the in-depth bareness. WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Paid have always taken importance when evaluating Wikipedia and its purposes, because No Advertising has always been one of them. Also examining the article closely again shows the separated timing: March, August and December 2014, April, May and November 2015 and January and July 2016. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Goldenberg, Roy (2014-03-19). "Zeek allows shoppers to trade credit vouchers". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Though the app has an easy-to-use graphic interface, its complexity lies in the logistics of transferring the credit from person to person in exchange for money. Zeek serves as the connection between the two parties, in place of a face-to-face meeting, but the process is still somewhat clumsy. This is due to the fact that the retailers refuse to accept physical or digital copies of store credit, only originals.
  ...
  Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear, and the two founders are in talks on the matter with the retail chains, but they emphasize that no matter what, for users, the buyers and sellers, there will be no charge for use of the app or transaction fees of any sort.
  The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets, such as Asia, Latin America, and Europe, in the future. The US is irrelevant, because store credit is very rarely used there.
  For the time being it only has a Hebrew website.
  The first investor in the company was Uri Levine, former president and co-founder of traffic app Waze , who today is chairman and co-founder of financial fees comparison site Feex. He is also an angel investor.
2. Shamah, David (2014-08-21). "Stuck with a store credit? Zeek helps you get rid of it. A new app helps Israelis reclaim hundreds of millions of shekels lost annually to unused credits". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  In many cases, consumers find pursuing a refund more trouble than it’s worth, so they take the line of least resistance – settling for a credit, in the hope that they will find something else they want from the same store. But for those who can’t, Zeek has a solution – a platform that lets buyers, sellers, and barterers of store credits to find each other, no matter where they are. According to Zeek CEO Daniel Zelkind, retailers are cleaning up on this system, to the detriment of consumers. As much as NIS 600 million ($175 million) in store credits go unused every year.
  The Zeek app, available for Android and iOS, allows users to scan a copy of their credit and upload details to Zeek’s cloud. Users name their asking price. Zeek categorizes and tags the credit by store, product, style, gender and age appropriateness, and any other criteria users potential buyers would search for. Buyers pay no commission, and depending on store policies, sellers can often sell different chunks of their credit to different customers, allowing them to maximize their sale coverage.
  While Zeek is clearly a made-in-Israel app – it could have evolved only in a country where refunds are not a matter of course – the app is useful abroad as well. Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly. “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.”
3. Keach, Sean (2015-01-20). "Zeek app lets you buy and sell unwanted gift cards". TrustedReviews. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Zeek looks to combat this age-old frustration by setting up a digital marketplace where unloved gift cards can be bought and sold with ease.
  It’s simple really - Agatha’s ungrateful sod of a nephew uploads a picture of his gift card and sets a price, all via his smartphone.
  The app then lets willing buyers pick up the gift card at the discounted value – Zeek reckons it sees an average 20 per cent skimmed off – and find it in their postbox shortly thereafter.
  Money goes direct to into the seller’s bank account or PayPal, and the buyer is now free to spend his or her new gift card as he or she pleases.
4. Rabi, Idan (2016-07-27). "Israeli gift card marketplace co Zeek raises $9.5m". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Zeek is a mobile app and website that allows users to buy gift cards and vouchers from their favorite brands at a discount and sell unwanted gift vouchers for cash, providing a solution to the estimated $100 billion of unused gift cards globally.
  ...
  Zeek was founded in 2014 by CEO Daniel Zelkind, VP Marketing Itay Erel and CTO Ziv Isaiah and has 35 employees in Israel and London. The company has raised $12.5 million to date including the latest financing round.
5. Reback, Gedalyah (2016-07-27). "A gift card startup just raised $9.5 million to solve the unclaimed gift card problem". he:Geektime. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  If you thought gift cards didn’t have traction, think again. Israel-based Zeek announced a $9.5 million Series B funding round led by Scale-Up Venture Capital on Wednesday. That financing includes contributions from major players like Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm Ventures.
  The company’s site and app sells gift cards to major brands, as well as resells unused or unwanted gift cards. Reselling would presumably put a dent in what Zeek‘s press release says is a staggering $100 billion in unused gift cards, up from an estimated $41 billion in unclaimed gift cards between 2005 and 2011.
  ...
  Zeek was founded in 2014 by CEO Daniel Zelkind, Itay Erel and Ziv Isaiah. Zeek will direct a chunk of the new round toward expansion in the UK market.
6. Levy, Ruti; Appelberg, Shelly; Orpaz, Inbal (2016-07-28). "TechNation: Zeek Raises $9.5 Million for Store-voucher Marketplace". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
7. "Top 10 Israeli Undiscovered Startups". Jewish Business News. 2016-07-06. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Zeek is on a mission to rescue $100 billion worth of unused gift cards and vouchers for users. Zeek is a web-based and app marketplace platform that allows users to buy gift vouchers for over 350 leading UK brands at discounted rates as well as sell their unwanted gift vouchers quickly and easily. zeek.me
8. O'Hear, Steve (2005-05-18). "Zeek Lets You Buy And Sell Unwanted Gift Vouchers". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  If you’ve ever received a gift voucher for a store you rarely or never shop in, then Zeek could prove useful. The marketplace and mobile app lets you buy and sell unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount. Meanwhile, Zeeks take a commission on each transaction. Win-win-win, you might say.
  Today the Tel Aviv-headquarted company is disclosing that it’s closed a $3 million Series A round from Blumberg Capital, Qualcomm Ventures (the chip maker’s venture arm), and Waze founder and existing Zeek investor Uri Levin. Originally launched in Israel before expanding to the U.K. in December 2014, the startup plans to use the new funding to “expedite” further European expansion.
9. O'Hear, Steve (2016-07-27). "Zeek, a startup that lets you buy and sell unwanted gift vouchers, closes $9.5M Series B". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Originally launched out of Tel Aviv in 2014, Zeek has since expanded to the U.K., which is now a key market for the startup and part of the reason for today’s announced fund-raise. The new capital will be used to consolidate its position in the U.K. and for further international expansion. This will include a hiring drive as Zeek plans to increase headcount in order to accelerate that growth.
  The company’s app and marketplace lets you trade unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount.
  In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast.
  With that said, in a statement Alex Lazovsky, General Partner of Scale-Up VC, is talking up Zeek’s unicorn potential, although I tellingly failed to get the startup’s current valuation.
10. Chang, Lulu (2016-07-27). "Growing startup Zeek helps you sell those unwanted gift cards". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Fresh off a $9.5 million Series B funding round, Zeek is planning on expanding beyond its Israeli headquarters and moving into Europe. The company already has a presence in the U.K. — it’s been there since December 2014 — and it now looks as though demand and additional capital will be taking this gift card-specific marketplace to new horizons.
11. Shapira, Ariel (2015-05-27). "Tech Talk: Israel is a Kickstarter superpower". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Zeek, an Israeli app company for unwanted store credit, lets you sell store credit (those receipts you get when you return an item that usually ends up getting washed in the laundry), gift cards and e-vouchers below face value. Zeek recently announced that it has raised $3 million in Series A funding from Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm Inc. through its venture investment group, Qualcomm Ventures and Waze founder Uri Levin.
  Zeek said it will use this new funding to facilitate its expansion into Europe this year.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zeek to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Cunard: I was impressed that you put so much effort into looking for references that would establish notability. Unfortunately it appears you have a different interpretation to WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH than others including me. Sources must be secondary - that means they shouldn't parrot PR releases or extensively quote from corporate officers or investors. Also, funding rounds or investor participation is not considered useful for establishing notability. Looking at the 11 references you provided:

1. Classic advertorial. Describes the problem (straight off the corporate data sheets and website) and then the flash of insight by the founders and the solution including selected quotes from the CEO and a mention of investors. It's not intellectually separate, relies on Primary sources and fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS.

2. Just to save myself typing the same things over and over ... please refer to what I said in 1. above. Same thing applies here.

3. And again.

4. Fund raising does not establish notability. It's also another advertorial. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

5. Same as 4. above.

6. Same as 4. above.

7. Same as 4. above. Also being on a list of similar companies also fails WP:COPRPDEPTH.

8: Same as 1. and 4. above. Also, just be aware, Techcrunch is just about never an independent source.

9. See 8. above

10. See 1. and 4. above

11. See 1. above but mainly see 4. above.

It's a shame that for so much effort I don't agree with any of your choices for sources that establish notability. If you've any questions about the interpretation of sources above, fire ahead and I'll do my best to answer them. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider bylined articles published in reputable Israeli newspapers to be advertisements. The assertion that the journalists are publishing advertorials is a vicious attack on the journalists' integrity. Such attacks should not be made without clear evidence that the journalists' independence has in fact been compromised by payment from the subject, for example.
That a journalist has asked for and included quotes from the subjects of the articles is proper journalistic practice. That you disagree with the newspapers' journalistic and editorial judgment about what should be included in their articles does not render the sources unreliable.
Fundraising articles do establish notability when the articles provide deep coverage of the subject. From WP:CORPDEPTH, "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." The articles I listed here clearly "extends beyond routine announcements" by discussing the products and history in detail.
Cunard (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that explains why we have different opinions. I'm wasn't sure why you highlighted "reputable Israeli newspapers" - what about others like Digital Trends and Techcrunch which are mainly North American? Anyway, the articles speak for themselves. An article that follows the well known formula of "problem, lightbulb moment by entrepeneur, company solution, funding, selected PR quotes from a founder or CEO or other company officer" is a Primary source with no evidence of independent fact checking. You'll find that when a company has established real notability, this formula tends to disappear very quickly. You say that fundtaising articles do establish notability - which is true, but only if those articles are independent. If you read a little more from WP:CORPDEPTH you'll come across Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. You'll also find that acceptable sources include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources. You'll find that a primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it except for press releases, press kits, or similar works which is where that "formula" for the articles come from. The bottom line is that none of the *facts* can be verified by an independent secondary source, since the sources are getting their facts directly from the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that explains why we have different opinions. – I don't consider journalists to become non-independent when they interview their articles' subjects. I don't attack journalists' reputation by saying they are writing advertorials when they are following the standard journalistic practice of including quotations from their subjects, have a writing style I don't like, or include content I consider unimportant.
I'm wasn't sure why you highlighted "reputable Israeli newspapers" - what about others like Digital Trends and Techcrunch which are mainly North American? – the Israeli newspapers have covered Zeek in substantial detail so are the strongest sources about the company.
The bottom line is that none of the *facts* can be verified by an independent secondary source, since the sources are getting their facts directly from the company. – you are making an assertion unsupported by evidence. The sources could have independently verified the information in their articles during fact-checking by the sources' editors. Since no evidence has been provided to show otherwise and exceptional claims require exceptional sources, I will assume good faith that these sources, which have a reputation for fact-checking, did in fact do their due diligence and are not blindly publishing advertorials masquerading as actual news articles.
When you say journalists writing news articles are not producing independent articles, you are claiming that the journalists are committing journalistic malpractice. Reputable publications that have determined a journalist has committed journalistic malpractice will fire the journalist for failing to do his or her job. Journalistic malpractice is a serious charge to make and should not be made without clear evidence.
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are the same exact sources that were analyzed in the first AfD: "Though the app has an easy-to-use graphic interface, its complexity lies in the logistics of transferring the credit from person to person in exchange for money. Zeek serves as the connection between the two parties, in place of a face-to-face meeting"...."The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets, such as Asia, Latin America, and Europe, in the future"...."In many cases, consumers find pursuing a refund more trouble than it’s worth, so they take the line of least resistance – settling for a credit, in the hope that they will find something else they want from the same store. But for those who can’t, Zeek has a solution – a platform that lets buyers, sellers, and barterers of store credits to find each other, no matter where they are"...."While Zeek is clearly a made-in-Israel app – it could have evolved only in a country where refunds are not a matter of course – the app is useful abroad as well. Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly. “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.”...."If you’ve ever received a gift voucher for a store you rarely or never shop in, then Zeek could prove useful. The marketplace and mobile app lets you buy and sell unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount. Meanwhile, Zeeks take a commission on each transaction. Win-win-win, you might say"...."Originally launched out of Tel Aviv in 2014, Zeek has since expanded to the U.K., which is now a key market for the startup and part of the reason for today’s announced fund-raise. The new capital will be used to consolidate its position in the U.K. and for further international expansion. This will include a hiring drive as Zeek plans to increase headcount in order to accelerate that growth"...."The company’s app and marketplace lets you trade unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount"....In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast"...."Fresh off a $9.5 million Series B funding round, Zeek is planning on expanding beyond its Israeli headquarters and moving into Europe. The company already has a presence in the U.K. — it’s been there since December 2014 — and it now looks as though demand and additional capital will be taking this gift card-specific marketplace to new horizons"....Zeek, an Israeli app company for unwanted store credit, lets you sell store credit (those receipts you get when you return an item that usually ends up getting washed in the laundry), gift cards and e-vouchers below face value. Zeek recently announced that it has raised $3 million from....". None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH because the sources contained clear pricing information, costs, servicing information, etc. (certainly not satisfying WP:GNG, since anything with pricing information is sure to not be independent), and it wouldn't even satisfy WP:What Wikipedia is not, our main policy. Even if the sources were acceptable, the violations of WP:Paid, alone are non-negotiable. SwisterTwister talk 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:ADVERT Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional. Fails WP:CORP. Article has been "reference bombed" mostly by IP 92.20.196.186 (37 sources are referenced in 6 sentence lede!) which do nothing to establish notability as they are either direct press releases or derived from company press releases or articles where over half the article is quotes from a company executive which are not independent sources per policy WP:PROMOTION and guideline "Non-independent sources - Press Releases".. WP:GNG requires a topic to meet all 3 requirements of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Strangely, the article has 22 sources listed and, with the possible exception of the CNN Money article, none seem to meet the "independent" requirement. CBS527^Talk 03:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts about this article from The Times of Israel and this article from Globes? Cunard (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the majority of the content about the company in both articles is coming from a primary source, either a company press release or from a company executive. Since the references are derived from primary sources they are not sufficient to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 01:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant portions from the two articles are not attributed to the company executives. What specific company press releases is the material from The Times of Israel and Globes articles reliant on? Cunard (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and lack of notability; the company is not yet encyclopedically relevant. The coverage presented at this AfD is about company plans, aspirations and funding, with the news of its funding repeated multiple times, such as "A gift card startup just raised $9.5 million to solve the unclaimed gift card problem". This is insufficiently independent coverage, and strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company to have an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and the sources listed above fail WP:RS as they are not independent and rely on Primary sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." It is permissible for Wikipedia articles to be sourced to reputable secondary sources that have obtained information from primary sources and then validated that the information is accurate through fact-checking.
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources highlighted by Cunard are reliable independent sources giving the company and its history significant coverage. Sources such as Times of Israel and Digital Trends pass WP:RS, it really is that simple. If that's not enough here is a source from CNN giving the subject significant coverage. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN coverage has the same issue as all of the above -- it's not fully independent. For example, the article states:

"Zeek co-founder and CEO Daniel Zelkind said his app has been downloaded 200,000 times and has helped people buy and sell over $200,000 in gift cards since launching earlier this year."

So we have solely the claims of the company on why it's significant and notable. This cannot be used to write an NPOV article, hence WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting the entire CNN article is a promotion written by the company, or that one quote used from the company invalidates CNN as a source. Regardless, I fail to see how WP:TOOSOON applies. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The remarkable similarity between most of the references indicates their common origin as a press release. One or two are more extensive interviews by the founder, in which they say whatever the choose to say. This is firmly established as unusable for the purposes of establish notability--and for almost anything else except what they choose to give as their opinions. It is highly unlikely that a company of this minute size would be notable--almost no firm in the A or B rounds of financing is, though there are exceptions. At that stage these ae firms that are in great need of advertising and publicity, as they usually have very little else to offer. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to help them establish their business. The elaborate defense above of some of the references loss its point, when one reads what they actually say. Some such presentations in detail do succeed in establishing some degree of notability, and can be a perfectly valid way of arguing. In this case, it just confirm the lack of notability . As just one example "Zeek is on a mission to rescue $100 billion "; considering their total funding is under $30 million, this extravagent goal clearly shows how far they are from having actual significance. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles from The Times of Israel, Globes, and CNN are not "remarkably similar".
It is highly unlikely that a company of this minute size would be notable--almost no firm in the A or B rounds of financing is, though there are exceptions. – firms of any size or any round of financing are notable if they pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It is an unbelievable claim to say that The Times of Israel, Globes, and CNN are not reliable sources or to say that The Times of Israel, Globes, and CNN are not independent of the subject.
That an Israeli company received significant coverage in the American news station CNN and in the UK publication TrustedReviews strongly establishes it is notable. A non-notable firm would not receive international significant coverage in respected publications.
Cunard (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage from CNN, Times of Israel, and Globes is non-trivial. A quick search also brought up mentions in the guardian, MarketWatch, and the economist (a short data piece - but actually quite interesting (from a finance perspective) - they compared discount-rates by chain on Zeek's website - by scraping data from Zeek - would seem this is independent research) - which I'm placing in the article. As this is a consumer-facing business dealing with a common consumer problem (in some markets) - it is receiving more coverage than a typical series-B startup.[5] [6] [7]. These are not promotional pieces - they are covering a few companies in this "gift card resale market" Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note - looking at the press, it seems "gift card coverage" is an annual recurring staple around Christmas. And it seems Zeek (and 2-3 other startups) have worked themselves into this recurring coverage - so whomever is covering the "gift card angle" on the yearly piece at various outlets - is working them in - which shows notability.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. DGG's analysis is spot on, so nothing further to add. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per DGG's concise WP:POLICY-based analysis, which is unclouded by waffle and which ignores off-topic suggestions to look at squirrels. Narky Blert (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LoveLump

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

While the existence of this artist project/hoax website seems established, there's very little to establish notability. Notability question was raised on Talk page in 2010. No coverage found in the sorts of sources usually considered reliable and very little else, jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage to support notability for this article - Whpq (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 17:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Artists Motion Pictures

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

The article does not indicate why the organisation is notable or significant. It reads like an advertisement. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a leading production studio in Tamil cinema - India's second highest profile film industry - who regularly collaborate with the industry's leading actors, directors and technicians (Vikram, Sivakarthikeyan, Dhanush) / (Gautham Menon, Selvaraghavan) / (A. R. Rahman, Harris Jayaraj) etc. I've added some extra sources too. Editor 2050 (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It satisfies WP:ORG. The subject has sufficient references for establishing notability. As per the claim of notion, the nominator should have taken appropriate steps or tag as {{advert}} before listing here as an advertisement. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 08:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A top production house which produced a National Award winning film. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 19:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juan M. Thompson

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

This article should be deleted as it has only trivial coverage in sources meaning it does not pass the WP:GNG. The article also is WP:ONEEVENT as it is only notable for one event. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 18:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Meets CSD Criteria for a non noteworthy person. I have co-CSD tagged if it does not fall under CSD (an admin drops it) I will explain why it should be deleted per other policy. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Fraud and threats over many years.

References

Weiser, Benjamin (3 March 2017). "Ex-Reporter Charged With Making Bomb Threats Against Jewish Sites". NY Times. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
"Juan Thompson Complaint". scribd.com. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
(BuzzFeed), Tom Namako. "U S v Juan Thompson Complaint". documentcloud.org. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
Reed, Betsy (2016-02-02). "A Note to Readers". theintercept.com. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
"What to Know About Juan Thompson, Accused of Threatening Jews to Frame His Ex". time.com. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
"Jewish Centers Around the U.S. Targeted by Bomb Threats". time.com. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
"Missouri Man Arrested After Allegedly Threatening Jewish Centers in Ex-Girlfriend's Name". time.com. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
"juan thompson landed a dream job writing about st louis for the national media, but was any of it true ?". Riverfront Times. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
Holleman, Joe. "Reporter/St. Louis native fired for 'pattern of deception' at online news site". St. Louis Today. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
Murphy, Doyle. "Juan Thompson, Who Chronicled Tough St. Louis Background for National Media, Fired in Fabrication Scandal". Riverfront Times. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
Murphy, Doyle. "Disgraced Reporter Juan Thompson Hired, Fired From New Writing Job". Riverfront Times. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
""We Own You."— On The Intercept's Problem with Black Folk". medium.com. 7 July 2016. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
Murphy, Doyle. "Before Bomb Threats, Juan Thompson Unraveled — and Terrorized an RFT Reporter". riverfronttimes.com. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
"Neighborhood News". dnainfo.com. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
Miner, Michael. "Former 'reporter' Juan Thompson arrested and accused of threatening JCCs". chicagoreader.com. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
Zadrozny, Brandy (3 March 2017). "Journalist Went From Making Fake News to Allegedly Making Bomb Threats to Frame His Ex". thedailybeast.com. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
Brooklyn Public Network
Dylann Roof
https://www.gofundme.com/thompsonformayor
https://twitter.com/juanmthompson
https://theintercept.com/staff/juan/

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

I am disputing "non-noteworthy person".

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xb2u7Zjzc32: Which of the references that you have provided above give evidence for the assertion that this individual subject to the article is notable? As KAP03 rightly said there are guidelines like WP:ONEEVENT which suggest against judging notability on the back of single events which are reported about by the media. Furthermore, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, you might be very right Xb that this person is reported about by the media on a short term basis however this does not automatically make someone notable. Furthermore, you have provided "go fund me links" which is rather strange when you are trying to assert notability. Are you sure you are trying to convince me of this person’s notability or are you trying to get me to donate to someone? Wikipedia can be an awesome place for people to get knowledge on those who have had a great amount of impact on the world, and while the subject of this article is probably a great guy (sarcasm heavily implied) that does not justify a Wikipedia biography, nor does temporary "one event" speculative news sorties support a claim for notability. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xb2u7Zjzc32: As you have mentioned yourself, this person is a suspect in a hideous crime. They are reported about by the media for supposedly making bomb threats and other terrorist threats. Are you arguing that because this man is said to have made these threats and a non-wide coverage of those threats has been made by a very few small and unchecked news outlets that thus this person is notable? Suspected paedophiles are often reported about by my local media, does that on its own give them the notability to have a Wikipedia article made about them?. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 20:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources specifically about Thompson. His notability isn't really for a single event - there's coverage about his association with The Intercept, and he's only a minor player in the Jewish community center bombing threats, it appears. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable for at least two events - fake coverage in The Intercept (made up quotes, including one about Dylan Roof motive because a former girlfriend dated black men - see The_Intercept#Juan_Thompson_scandal) + threats against the Jewish community centers. He has been subject of quite intense media coverage due to these two incidents - the first one (the intercept), by itself, one quite notable in its notoriety in the national media, and was a major scandal for "The Intercept". Beyond this - his own reporting and views also have some weight. This isn't a low-profile individual - to the contrary, his name is out there and has been out there for a while.Icewhiz (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can one of you please explain why this living person is worthy of attention and notice? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

planting fake news, including fake news that got very wide publication (the Dylan Roof piece - which was repeated elsewhere) in a major publication and which caused great embarrassment to that publication - is noteworthy. Being involved a major national terror/intimidation campaign which got widespread media coverage (also outside of the US) - is noteworthy. There is BLPCrime to consider here - but he is definitely noteworthy.Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

notable enough that his firing from another news organization (Media Blackout USA) was covered between "The Intercept" affair and the JCC bomb threats - in sep 2016 [8] Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz:

Alamis partitioned the wise men: “Please hear my case for why the notorious horse thief, Cain, should be in the Alamac of criminals.” The wise men remained silent, Alamis became angry and exclaimed “why is it that I must ask you to write the horse thieves name in the Alamac anyway! You men are called wise yet you do not see fit to put a name of a famous horse thief in a book for documenting criminals!” Again, the wise men remained silent. Alamis became more frustrated as he sensed the wise men would rather not answer his pleas.

“Which of you is the wisest!” Alamis exclaimed.

“We are all equally as wise” the wise men replied.

“Why is this man not to be in the Alamac of criminals?!” Alamis retorted.

“Should a horse thief be remembered?” asked the wise men.

“No.” replied Alamis.

“Then surely it is not for you to have him remembered” the wise men responded.

Alamis calmed himself and left the wise men. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki-Coffee:Thus, I must say, thou shalt nominate Bernard Madoff or Martin Shkreli for deletion according to the same principle. Famous villains gain notability by notoriety.Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Gulliver describes a royal personage inspiring awe among the tiny Lilliputians because he was taller than his brethren by the breadth of a human fingernail. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 16:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not merely notable for the one event - that might be the case if he were only some guy who tried to frame his girlfriend. But he's also notable as a Jayson Blair-type, for fraudulent articles he wrote before the more prominent incident. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's already been noted in the Intercept article. It's a huge problem on Wikipedia whenever a public figure is accused of or looks like an obvious terrorist, there is always an effort to delete any article on the subject. The writer is also associated with dubious anti-American news outlets like the Intercept and Raw Story, and he called in the threats to his friends at CAIR. There are allegations that he is also a muslim convert, and that his work as an anti-American propagandist might have something to do with his real motive for harming Jewish institutions. Bachcell (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had proposed this article a couple of days ago since I wrote a rather longish section on him at The Intercept when he got fired from that job. Now that he's become notable for more than one event, both of which are otherwise unrelated to each other, he can have his own article. I'm sure he wouldn't want it this way, but there it is. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable for multiple events and has received substantial coverage by the national media. Bk33725681 (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination, and there are no delete !votes. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshivat Shaare Torah

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

Okay, this article has coverage in newspapers or other sources all of which only mention this school passively and as part of an event centred around another subject. Subjects do not inherit the notability of other subjects (see WP:INHERIT.) Given that sources which can be found do not give notability to the school itself, but rather another event entirely, then these are not sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:GEO. As subjects on Wikipedia do not inherit notability from others, this article documents a non-notable organization and thus should be deleted. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC) _{[nominator has withdrawn nomination]}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. _{[Note to closing admin: This vote is made by the creator of the article]} Shaare Torah is a school that in its decades of existance has had thousands of students. It's inherently notable, as all such educational insitutions serving thousands of people would be. Ezzi386 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezzi386: So essentially your claim is that this school is worthy of attention or notice; That it is striking? One would notice no great quantity of modesty here. You have given me some information which can help build this article if it is indeed notable. That is it has "thousands of students." Has the school had any notable graduates of those thousands of people? Furthermore, you mentioned that the school is old so perhaps the article can go into its history therefore establishing more reason for it to be considered worthy of attention. If you are able to expand this article into something informative about how it is notable rather than just assuming its notable because it is a school then it would be a greater part of making Wikipedia more informative for everyone. I am quite interested to read about this schools striking history and would be very happy to rescind my nomination once the article itself demonstrates notability. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the advertorial tone is a problem, because it includes secondary/high school level it would seem to meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and be inherently notable, as Gnews reveals sources that verify its existence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: The link you just provided has a statement: "The results of this February 2017 RFC describe how school AFDs should be evaluated and are summarized below.Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've cited that so many times I didn't realize the Rfc had closed with it being revised (albeit clumsily: why leave criterion 2 intact and then add a 4th criterion at the end, negating it?). Anyway, thanks for the head's up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: It is not your fault that you are only human. I keep coming across your name because you tidy up AfD and add categories which really seems to help thank you for doing that. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 01:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I'm actually glad WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES no longer grants high schools automatic notability. But I guess we should prepare for a land rush of high school nominations? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: I guess that means a lot of category adding for you :-O. I do not even remember how I came across this article to be honest. I have no interest in schools but I guess we can compare Wikipedia to Youtube here. You can go from a video about how to plant a tree to a video with someone eating a squid alive (usually accompanied by a warning "graphic video" introduction for those who would not assume such information from the title of the video.) →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 01:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: I'm confused. You're an administrator here and I'd like you to expand if you could: doesn't the recent Rfc outcome as noted at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES mean that this past precedent no longer holds? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it does. That wasn't the wording of the RfC: it was to adopt a new notability guideline ("...the proposed change will not be adopted", to quote the closers). And note that I do not cite and never have cited SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The intention of the RfC closers was clearly not to open the floodgates to deletion of secondary school articles, as they clearly stated ("Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations"), and neither was it to destroy an existing consensus or give some sort of victory to the deletionists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply. I'm confused, then. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should not be cited even though the proposed change won't be adopted -- and the practice therefore remains in place for high schools, even though we can't cite why? I know that's not what you're saying -- but it's how it sounds to me. If WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES cannot be cited at Afd then imo the precedence, based upon it, has expired. From what I can see, this school falls fails GNG. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent is that established over hundreds of AfDs. In what possible way does one discussion destroy all that precedent? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the result states now that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist," which is what SCHOOLOUTCOMES often boiled down to, for secondary schools? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an answer to my (albeit rhetorical) question, I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't know what you're after but the Rfc closure seems clear. Thank you for your initial reply. As far as I'm concerned, this is a sea change for high school notability, going forward. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree. Let's leave it at that. Deletionists, fill your boots! Have a field day! Destroy the project! Frankly, what's the point? I'm seeing less and less reason to be here, sadly. Petty "rules", petty "enforcers". Very sad to see where Wikipedia is going. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question@Necrothesp: What do you mean by "deletionist." Sorry if it seems naive but I would rather not assume what you mean and be wrong. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 20:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean someone (and there are sadly too many on Wikipedia) who delights more in deleting existing content (citing some non-existent "rule" to justify their behaviour) than in creating new content. Someone who comes to the project for the joy of destroying others' work rather than to create their own and to look down their nose at anyone who disagrees. The sort of people who actually come to an encyclopaedia and say that their main reason in being here is to delete content and reduce the size of Wikipedia (yes, I've actually seen that written). Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Wikipedia should be full of rubbish and I've deleted plenty of it in my time here, but neither do I believe that valid articles should be deleted just because they don't meet the letter of some rigid, monolithic "rule". I do not see how that is benefiting the incredible project that most of us are surely here to further. Over the years I have seen a massive increase in these "rules" and the number of editors who only seem to come here to "enforce" them and it's really not an edifying experience. This is not, incidentally, an attack on anyone who has posted here, in case it is mistakenly taken to be so. But there are certainly editors out there who will be crowing over the "deletionists' charter" that the RfD may be taken to be and will take full advantage of it to attempt to destroy others' work. It is sometimes hard to assume good faith after reading some comments posted on AfDs and easy to lose faith in what we are doing here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp:

Thank you for taking the time to explain that, I understand the term better now. With specific regard to this article. Have you noticed that this is a private school which students pay to be enrolled? And that the articles tone seems to be geared towards advertising its mere presence rather than quantify any encyclopaedic content? I would say that sometimes, it is human nature to personify an issue such as an AfD beyond the situational facts. When one examines this article, there is a single issue which I think would be worth considering; Is the article representative of content which ought to be on an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit. The boldened writing brings attention to a major factor here and that is Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and thus, theoretically, anything anyone could ever want to inform people about could be included. However, there are practical implications of allowing anything anyone wants to be written on this platform, mainly that it would become an indiscriminate compilation of informative text. Some of that indiscriminate text would be information designed to mislead or act as propaganda for certain causes. If this was to take hold Wikipedia would go from being a platform of knowledge to a platform of indoctrination.

Now there are two central viewpoints which are shown by my notion. Those who want Wikipedia to be a platform for indoctrination and those who want Wikipedia to be a platform for knowledge. Those who edit with a certain cause such as shown in this article wish it to become a platform for indiscriminate information which acts merely to show something exists and promote its existence rather than provide any useful knowledge about it. That in my mind is a step into the direction of Wikipedia becoming a platform for indoctrination and not knowledge, thus it is my belief it should be removed from Wikipedia.

There is a simple criterion which I followed when reading this article in its entirety; Did the article teach me anything? The simple answer was “no.” It showed me something, that is that the institution it speaks of is a private Jewish school which occupies a certain address in New York. Being shown something is invariably different from being taught something, some things both show and teach you things but this merely shows. Now I do not think Wikipedia is a mere stage, billboard or theatre and that is why I have nominated this article for deletion.

→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have never considered state schools to be more worthy than private schools and I see no good reason to start now. I also have to say that I see little in the way of advertising in the article. It is in no way attempting to "indoctrinate" anyone. It is, to my mind, an article entirely appropriate for an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp:

I do not think you have understood the point which I was trying to put across here. “Note that we have never considered state schools to be more worthy than private schools and I see no good reason to start now” inferences that I made an argument as to why private schools are less notable than non-private schools. This is no way relevant to the points I made.

I’m going to try and simplify this. What makes schools exempt from WP:GNG This school is not covered by any coverage in any sources other than its own self-published sources which are not deemed reliable per WP:SOURCE.

A recent RfC closed with the summery that a school’s mere existence should not establish notability, which de facto is a reaffirmation of Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. It is not a debate about “deletionist” or “creationist” as Wikipedia is not a social experiment, it’s using rules and guidelines set in place by consensus built on experience from editors with a vast array of experiences on Wikipedia.

There is no debate as to if or not this article passes WP:GNG – it does not – and it is not likely to given that I can find no sources about this school other than self-published, however, I might be wrong and am open to being wrong. I am quite perplexed as to why an administrator is arguing against Wikipedia core policies, it does not make sense to me. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 01:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. "Have you noticed that this is a private school which students pay to be enrolled?", you asked. Sorry, but how could I take that as anything other than an argument that it was a special case because it was a fee-paying private school? If you weren't making that case then why did you ask the question in the first place? Since it would be utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: What do you define notable to be? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 09:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator states "This school is not covered by any coverage in any sources other than its own self-published sources which are not deemed reliable per WP:SOURCE." This statement is false. It took me only a minute on my smartphone to see that this school has received coverage in reliable, independent sources such as The New York Times, The Gothamist, another New York Times article, Community magazine, Guidestar, and Charity Navigator. The school is also discussed in a book called "The Daily Halacha: A Compendium of Practical Halachot and Illuminating Insights from the Weekly Parasha", and in one Hebrew language book. Given that this is an Orthodox Jewish topic, a search of Hebrew language newspapers should be completed as well, many of which are not available online. There is a broader philosophical issue here as well. Wikipedia's Five Pillars are the philosophical underpinning of this project, and at the beginning of that document, you will find these sentences:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."

Consider the 1901 edition of the World Almanac, now in the public domain. This single volume reference work contained nineteen pages about U.S. universities. Wikipedia is not confined to a single volume, we do not need to purchase barrels of ink or railroad cars full of paper, and we currently have well over five million English articles. We can easily and appropriately expand our coverage from U. S. universities to all verifiable degree awarding schools worldwide. Arguments that this content is "indiscriminate" are invalid, since this is precisely the sort of content historically included in specialized encyclopedias and almanacs. Arguments that make a distinction between public and private schools are also unpersuasive. This is not "Public-institution-pedia". We should keep articles about degree awarding schools if these articles comply with our three core content policies: Such articles must be verifiable, written from the neutral point of view, and include no original research. No school is inherently notable, but we should not be deleting articles based on a nominator's failure to find sources which exist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Hello, Cullen I have found what you have written extremely interesting. In fact, I understand your philosophy but find myself unable to agree in this case. My first point is based on an argument that coverage by the media does not give inherent notability on its own and especially in the case of for-profit companies like this one.

I further argue that there is a definitive difference between coverage and notability. This is based on the logical deduction that news-papers and other news sources write stories about people and issues of interest all the time and often do so indiscriminately, they are not required to establish the notability of their stories and the interest in publishing is with the publisher alone. Small so called “one hit headlines” are common with the inclusion of otherwise non-noteworthy subjects which assert the importance of an event over the importance of the subject itself be it an organization or a person. In these situations, as shown in the sources you have provided, the events themselves would be notable as articles whereas this does not give intrinsic notability to those involved in the event. Surely it would be an idiocy to include organizations or people on Wikipedia simply because they attended an event are have been mentioned passively by a reporter or that the organization happened to be involved in a circumstantial event centred principally around other subjects. This is that argument that notability is not inherited.→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 10:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Coffee, your assertion that this is a for profit organization is utterly false as shown by two reliable sources I provided showing that this school is a registered non-profit. You failed to address my argument about almanacs. Have you searched New York's Hebrew language newspapers? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Sighs. Cullen, my friend, which part of this article includes content which is supported by reliable sources? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 16:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to sigh at me, Wiki-Coffee. There is also no requirement that reliable sources be in the article at this time. I have shown that some sources exist. You failed to find those sources. Instead of sighing, try answering my questions, dealing with the profit/nonprofit issue, the almanac issue, the Hebrew language source issue, and so on. I will expand and reference the article later today Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Firstly, my name is Solomon, pleased to e-meet you. Secondly there is a reason I am not addressing your issue with regard to almanacs and that is because you are drawing parallel to another book which is not Wikipedia and does not have the same editing guidelines as Wikipedia. Furthermore, there does need to be reliable sources which back up each and every word in a Wikipedia article otherwise said content can be removed. The sources you have provided would give this school inherited notability which is not permitted per WP:INHERIT. Your arguments are non objective and you seem hell bent on wanting to keep this article whatever Wikipedia policy has to say about it. Your arguments thus far are not at all based on Wikipedia's inclusion policies and are instead, on the face of it, based on your own personal opinions. If you have anything other than personal opinions to tell me I would like to hear it, especially if its qualified by a Wikipedia policy. The personal views are usually disregarded in AfD debates by closing administrators in favour of those views expressed which are grounded on some Wikipedia policy. If you can provide me a solid argument which is supported by Wikipedia's inclusion policies as to why this article should continue to exist then I will rescind my nomination. I have zero interest in this article remaining or being deleted either way so my mind is yet still to be changed. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: To clarify:

The sources you have provided are focused on an event or subject other than the subject of this article. They passively mention this school in the way of validating its existence as a part of an event, but not the focus of the event itself. The sources do not confer notability directly to this subject therefore for them to be used as sources would be using another subjects notability thus in contrary to WP:INHERIT.
Your argument that because the 1901 edition of the World Almanac contains schools that this means schools are automatically notable on Wikipedia is not supported by Wikipedia's current guidelines for notability.
There is currently not a single sentence in this article which is supported by reliable sources. Self-published sources are not deemed reliable sources.

→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 20:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Coffee, the article now has eight references and is in full compliance with our core content policies of verifiability, no original research and the neutral point of view. It is you, not I, who have brought falsehoods to this debate, such as the size of the student body, the false claim that the school is profit making, and the claim that no independent sources exist.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added the information and citation that the school is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. I'll leave it for others to add further citations, and withhold judgement. It's important that we avoid false premises in these discussions. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I do find it odd that the RfC says WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is correct but we can't say why. So I'm saying why anyway and invoking WP:IAR since "Keep but I can't tell you why" is not how we build an encyclopedia. Smartyllama (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, Smartyllama, SCHOOLOUTCOMES is now on the list of "arguments to avoid at AFD". It's still a valid statement about the result of AFDs, but creates a catch-22 and thus should not be used as a reason for deletion. Happy to discuss it further on a separate venue.

GNG, of course, is still completely valid. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: Could you explain how this article, in its current or future form conforms to WP:GNG with consideration of WP:INHERIT? I am genuinely interested as to how one could say it does conform to these guidelines because it will inform my view on other issues. Thank you :-D. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/nyregion/23grate.html indicates that this isn't actually a high school (it's described as a half-day school with just 60 students at the Village Pump), but rather an educational organization with several components, including a private K–8 school with hundreds of students. I therefore don't think that "it's a high school, so vote my way on it" is a relevant line of argument. I have found some minor sources in local press: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/ywn-videos/286186/watch-yeshiva-headmaster-defends-security-guard-who-roughed-up-man.html However, in ten minutes of searching, I've not been able to find independent sources that provide a basic description of the organization (the sort needed for WP:WHYN compliance). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, this discussion has been badly contaminated by a series of falsehoods that Wiki-Coffee has been spreading about Yeshivat Shaare Torah, both here and at WP:Village pump (policy). This editor has stated the school's enrollment is 60 half day students. That is false. The fact is that this organization operates a preschool program, a boys elementary school, a girls elementary school, a boys high school and a girls high school, with a combined enrollment of well over 1000 students. The editor claims that it is a profit making business. That is false. The organization is a registered tax exempt non-profit educational group. The editor claims that the only sources available about the organization are self published. That is false. I have added eleven independent references which verify the claims made in the article. Anyone who wants to cite Yeshivat Shaare Torah as an example of why we need to delete articles about secondary schools should rethink their position. Instead, it is an example of failure to properly research the topic before nominating an article for deletion, and a willingness to rely on falsehoods in an enthusiastic drive to delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Sighs Okay.

60 students - source
The source you provided here says it's name is YESHIVA SHAARE TORAH INC. In the United Kingdom Incorporated companies are different from charities and have a completely separate registration process and are separate legal entities. I am from the UK so I go by that, If I am wrong about this and in the USA Incorporated companies can still be charities then I apologise.

Finally, how does this have anything to do with my nomination reason for this article? Have you read it? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 02:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your source, Wiki-Coffee. Look at the grade range, where it says "PK". That is the abbreviation for "pre-kindergarten". You are looking at a listing for one of the five schools this organization operates, the one that provides half day programs for 2 to 5 year old children, and you are applying those attendance figures to all five schools. Careless and false.

It is routine that non-profit charitable 501(c)(3) educational institutions in the United States charge tuition. I graduated from one such school, the University of San Francisco, and I assure you that they charged tuition. Your observation that this religious school charges tuition is neither surprising nor in any way relevant to whether or not this article should be kept.

Your attempt to apply UK law to US charitable institutions is evidence that you lack competence to evaluate the notability of US nonprofit schools and charitable institutions, at least until you do some serious reading about how charities are organized in the US. Non-profit corporations are common in the US. I look forward to the apology you promised.

Yes, I read your original nominating statement and also your refactored version after I pointed out that your original statement was based on falsehoods. Both versions of your deletion argument are stunningly unpersuasive. Next time, try to do some serious research on the topic before trying to delete an article. And try really hard to ensure that you do not spread falsehoods about the topic. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki-Coffee:, whatever your view on this article, you have done it a favor by nominating for deletion! Comparing the article prior to nomination to now, it is a transformation. There were some mistakes, but let's all assume good faith. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I did not apply UK Law to US Law, I merely assumed that a "incorporated company" was a company not a charity and that is how it is in the United Kingdom. This being a for profit institution or not is not at all relevant to the reason I nominated for AfD. It's an issue of terminology and not competence. You clearly do not like that I have nominated this article for deletion, and for that I am sorry. Furthermore, I apologise for incorrectly deeming a charity a for profit organisation as I judged by the standard of UK Terminology for what INC means. You have taught me something about US Law on charities, so I appreciate that. Conclusively, even if you disregard the notions that this school is a for-profit organisation and that it has more than 60 seats how does that at all address my points in the AfD nomination. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 03:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacknstock: That is good, it needed some TLC ;-). →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 03:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Much as I am reluctant (despite being long-standing coord of WP:WPSCH) to keep schools under any whim - for example the way OUTCOMES is often misused although it simply and perfectly summarises how a proven vast majority of school AfD are closed - the strengths of the arguments here are clear and Cullen328 summarises well how this particular article should be kept, while Necrothesp clearly outlines how accepted procedure should be applied. These two seasoned editors have not come here from a personal judicial background simply to argue Wikilaw for the sake of Wikilaw and turning a particular AfD into a debate that some would seem to use to turn Wikipedia policies and guidelines into inflexible fiats which even policy itself guards against.

A recent RfC mentioned OUTCOMES, which was , BTW, not even part of the RfC proposal statement, and there are many ways in which the same precedent expressed in that 'essay' can be successfully applied without mentioning the word 'OUTCOMES' which has been branded as a rude word and which Primefac elucidates: It's still a valid statement about the result of AFDs,. And on these principles alone I'm sure that learned Wikipedians such as, for example DGG, could add further valid commentary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rescind nomination - After just having re-read the article in its entirety I believe that sufficient content and sources have been added to pass WP:GNG. The nomination does not appear completely fruitless as Jacknstock has mentioned - it seems to have bought some light to the article and now has actually taught me something rather than simply showing me something. On this basis the validity of my AfD nomination no longer stands thus I move to withdraw it. Thank you. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 03:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 10:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Lathwal

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

Does not meet WP:Prof Uncletomwood (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing more than passing mentions; no indication that this is more than your average uni professor Spiderone 09:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete.. Already G11-ed by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 14:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Edutech

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY or WP:ORGCRITE; a quick search turned up only the article itself and self-published sources, no mentions in secondary sources. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- is this a copy/paste from the company's web site? "Our students are trained in various skills..." K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chika Eiro

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

Delete. --Gstree (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No rationale is given for nominating this article, but I suspect it fails both WP:PORNBIO and WP:BLP. This is Paul (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G7, only substantive contributor initiated the AFD discussion and there are no !votes other than delete. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 10:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obama-Trump feud

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

Very short article exploring a series of spats between the former and current presidents of the United States, and created by a new user in the wake of the latest claims made by Donald Trump. This is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS–even the media has reported on the lack of reaction to the allegations, and we can't create an article about every single thing that Trump says or does. This topic could be suitably covered in other articles. This is Paul (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created after the latest accusation by Mr. Trump because this feud has been going on for over 6 years. I cannot possibly write all of them out myself but I point major benchmarks out. This tense relationship is one of the most well-known conflicts in the world.HigginsWashtenaw (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if you think this subject deserves an article of its own, the onus is on you to demonstrate its importance. That means taking the time to do the research; it's not good enough to say "I cannot possibly write all of them out myself". At present all of these incidents are mentioned elsewhere. Bringing them together under one roof requires something a bit more substantial than you've got. This is Paul (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A drama magnet and WP:SYNTH that cobbles together a) a series of apparently baseless claims that Trump has made about Obama over the years and b) the fact that during the presidential campaign Obama publicly remarked that he believed Trump to be unsuited for the job of president into c) this made-up "feud." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the opening statement is utterly unsupported, and it's a typical example of SYNTH (imagine an "Obama-Bush feud" article) that tosses together a handful of different quotes and controversies. This really doesn't contribute anything that isn't covered in other articles - Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, etc. GAB^gab 19:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unenclyopedic WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. AusLondonder (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" at least until we can merge it it into another article? It's not just new but a long term annoyance worth documenting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:21C9:6300:941A:369C:19D4:8E1A (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Lepricavark (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's probably enough material to start an article about the phone-tap allegations, as that doesn't seem to be going away, and may or may not have repercussions. But an Obama-Trump feud article is a non-starter. This is Paul (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete, WP:SYNTH nonsense. ansh 666 05:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I started a space for the Donald Trump wiretapping claim. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is just... no... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYN.LM2000 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's really original research, sure some of the stuff can't be reliably backed up but the article didn't seem to me to be trying to present to this fact, merrily as the opinions that these two individuals were holding, and the fact that these individuals hold these opinions, is at least reliably documented, or maybe I misunderstand how the original reasearch thing works here?( how do I sign my queries/comments/votes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:21c9:6300:d468:789b:85c1:e96f (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You sign by adding four tildes ~~~~ after your comment. Please don't remove comments of other editors. Politrukki (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't know why we can't just rework this article until it meets the standards of Wikipedia...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:21c9:6300:d468:789b:85c1:e96f (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article fails WP:OR and WP:NOTNEWS because it is a synthesis of original research and Wikipedia is not a paper source. An admin should consider closing this early per WP:SNOW. - tucoxn\^talk 17:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – consists of material combined together in a WP:SYNTH manner. Second WP:SNOW. Politrukki (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 10:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Half Truth

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

Non-notable short film.Failed to find WP:RS covering it. Winged Blades^Godric 16:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 16:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NFILM after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 09:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Dwivedi

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

Non-notable actor.Hardly any news in WP:RS barring his marriage. Winged Blades^Godric 15:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 16:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of broad based coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the marriage is just one event and not enough to show notability Spiderone 09:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BDCricTime

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

Doesn't pass WP:ORG. No in depth coverage. Mar11 (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is promotional. The independent coverage in current sources is minor coverage of business deal. The remainder is self-sourced. Searches found nothing helpful to notability. Gab4gab (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see anything to suggest notability to meet WP:WEBCRIT Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there is insufficient coverage available in reliable sources to show that the subject is notable at this time. Mz7 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frany Dejota

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)

PROD removed by author without explanation. After searching for RSes, this fails GNG and MUSICBIO overall. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon. Lots of mentions and social media pages but no indepth coverage in reliable sources fails WP:GNG and more pertinently WP:MUSICBIO. Theroadislong (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Verify. Remove the removal poster, new verifiable references have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roumo (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Roumo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Verify reliable sources. The ASIN ID number from Frany Dejota's first album on Amazon was added. Frangaspar Frangaspar (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Frangaspar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Amazon is not an reliable source. Could you please read WP:RS to explain we need independent third party sources? KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verify relatible source. Reference was added Biography of Frany Dejota in the interview in Valencia News FM by the journalist Susana Perez verified on Twitter WP:MUSICBIO Frangaspar Frangaspar (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deleted 3 times as promotional at es.wiki.[9] Doug Weller talk 16:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar story at pt. Wkipedia [10] Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These accounts were misinterpreted and deliberately judged and eliminated as promotional but were not. This account has no promotional purposes nor intends to have, only information about the artist. Doug Weller Theroadislong Roumo Roumo (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Participate with the artist's page and contribute new data and references to build it properly so that it does not have a promotional aspect as it does not pretend to be, thank you! Doug Weller Theroadislong KGirlTrucker81 Roumo Roumo (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying it's promotional, it just has no indepth coverage in reliable sources and fails our notability guide and more pertinently WP:MUSICBIO Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verify relatible source. I oppose the elimination without meaning, help to make the artist's page verifiable. Roumo Roumo (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Verify Frany Dejota. I oppose the elimination page 84.78.26.35 (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Verify Do not delete the page, the artist is popular, respect and collaborate. 90.174.4.218 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Verify The biography was expanded and new references were added, reviewed and contributed, no delete the page, thank you. 84.78.25.67 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The next page: DJ Train It does not contain references, labels or anything and was not erased, why? Doug Weller Theroadislong KGirlTrucker81 Miguel23T (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Verify I totally oppose the deletion of this page knowing that there are pages like: DJ Train without deleting and that remain published without notices of elimination or debate, there is no right. Doug Weller Theroadislong KGirlTrucker81 Miguel23T (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)— Miguel23T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We have no control over any other language Wikipedias, just en.wiki. These single purpose account posts are making it more likely that the article will be deleted, as despite all their posts they haven't shown more evidence that the article meets our criteria. Doug Weller talk 06:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New references and new content on competitions were added. The page is under construction, new data will be added over time, we will continue to investigate the artist to contribute more data, collaborating on the page so that it remains visible. Doug Weller Theroadislong KGirlTrucker81 Roumo (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not met, neither is WP:NMUSIC. @Roumo: Please stop adding "Verify" to your comments, and please don't add other users' signatures to your comments either. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reliable sources and a google search gives almost nothing. GNG not reached.★Trekker (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News. Not one hit. ProQuest Music Periodicals Database - not one hit. ProQuest all databases - not one hit. Gale Canadian Periodical Index - no hits. Gale Infotrac Newsstand - no hits. I don't think I've ever encountered such an unnotable subject! Not only does there not appear to be anything to meet WP:GNG, I can't even find a reliable source that confirms they even exist! What the heck does "Verify" even mean? Based on it's usage here, it must mean that they don't know anything about Wikipedia's notability or deletion guidelines and policies. Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good sources are nonexistent, sources added are pretty bad, and the subject appears non-notable. City Of Silver 19:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. But the deleting administrator will take note of the campaign here by numerous WP:SPA users. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frangaspar. Doug Weller talk 21:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I've struck the posts from the confirmed socks, left Frangaspar's post and the IPs as the closing Admin/editor will likely see them as WP:DUCK editors, either socks or meatpuppets. Another sock was found after I blocked them for threatening an editor with the police, but the account didn't edit here. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The librarian of Spain is in search and capture by the authorities of the police for suppressing pages of Frany Dejota. The persecution, harassment and deletion of pages in the Wikipedia of Spain that suffered the artist of this page was already denounced by the National Police and the Civil Guard the Librarian who ordered to delete the pages of the artist Frany Dejota.90.174.4.148 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unremarkable and non-notable "DJ" with absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Doug did earlier, I've taken the liberty of striking all of the !votes by sock/meatpuppets. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 20:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Portuguese version has been prodded - as have several Spanish ones one, two, three, four, and five, and six. Some were deleted to six times, so I also recommend SALT. See also commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:FranyDJ.jpg. Nfitz (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I gave permission directly and all rights to MiguelG28 to use my photo and create the page in Wikipedia, Thanks for support. BotEditor (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet. Nfitz (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Frany Dejota is not a writer, do not search in Books Google. Find sources on Google Play Best regards from Spain, thanks. — 90.174.5.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment No one was saying he was a writer but it is possible to search in books for mentions of people. However, you're right, there's a total lack of coverage anywhere and Google Play is not an adequate source for establishing notability. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus Resort & Spa, Karambunai

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

A mysteriously removed speedy. This is a basically promotional article for an unremarkable business; references are basically about the company operating it. TheLongTone (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable resort property going about its business. No encyclopedic relevance. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apart from exceptional circumstances hotels are generally not notable, and this one is just another one of those WP:MILL hotel articles with little in the way of encyclopedic relevance. Ajf773 (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe d'Albert, 11th duc de Luynes

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

No claim to notability made, peers aren't inherently notable (especially those whose titles were officially abolished over 50 years before they were born). Wikipedia is not a genealogy website.

Also nominating two related articles:

Although WP:OTHERLANGS applies, it's still worth noting that no French Wikipedians have yet deemed any of the dukes notable enough to create an article on them. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redrect all to Duke of Luynes. We don't need their genealogy and details of their family, but as the title still seems to be in use it's just about relevant to include the names of the title-holders. PamD 15:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't redirect. None of the three has any vestige of a reliable source, and – at least for the more recent ones, are probably WP:BLP violations. Not even those unreliable sources claim that these people are dukes – they call them by their names. Of course their forebears are notable, some of them considerably so; but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Justlettersandnumbers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, perhaps they did something notable, but nothing in the article suggests these are notable individuals. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- completely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harambee (newspaper)

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

I don't see this defunct student newspaper as passing WP:GNG Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article. Searching found nothing helpful. With no significant coverage by RSes there's no need for this article. Gab4gab (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Keep~~ Delete - granted - minimal criterion to keep it, but there are few things that can connect between the history of the three stages of churchlands - teachers college, to wacae, to ece - if it gets deleted - parts of the content need to be in the ECU or Churchlands campus info - JarrahTree 16:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The content has no sources. Without reliable sources it doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia. Gab4gab (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am pointing out that the inserted content into the notes that illustrates the 'founding dates' from the refs might not be WP:RS but are useful context assuming deletion looks inevitable JarrahTree 16:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is back to front - if it had dealt with the first 20 years rather than the last years - it wouldnt be up for deletion

viz. = Edith Cowan University. Student Guild (1991), Harambee, The Guild, retrieved 6 March 2017 and Western Australian College of Advanced Education. Student Guild (1980), Harambee, The Guild, retrieved 6 March 2017

Delete - I found a couple references to US student newspapers called Harambee but nothing that would qualify as reliable or notable. I don't see anything that even proves existence of this particular Australia newspaper.Glendoremus (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the GNG and no real claim to significance. Any relevant info can be included in the Edith Cowan University article if desired. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Added a couple of references, but still not convinced of notability. Agree that relevant text should be transferred to Edith Cowan University article. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above editors. Nothing to show it passes WP:GNG. Although the cited information could be added to the Edith Cowan University, which currently makes no mention of student publications in their student life section. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Trans man. Merge as appropriate. czar 17:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transmasculine

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

This seems to be a content fork of trans man. Apart from the lead, it only duplicates (poorly) the content of other articles related to transsexuality. It is not clear from what seems to be the only on-point source whether this is meant to describe something qualitatively different from trans man, or merely the adjectival form of the topic, in which case this is not more than a dictionary entry. If there are terminological nuances, they should be covered in the trans man article. Sandstein 13:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trans man. Most of the references are not about this term or trivial. Nothing appears to be distinct that justifies another article, indeed, some references support the synonymy of the two terms. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vardan Arzoyan

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

The Armenian league is not listed as fully professional, thus the player fails WP:NFOOTY. My research did not discover that he passes WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2017 (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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable soccer player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Price

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

I do not see any notability of the individual. Most sources are affiliated with the person. Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too early for any kind of academic notability, as the subject is just an undergraduate student right now. Too little in terms of substantive coverage by independent reliable sources for passing WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A student who founded a couple of student clubs, needs non-local coverage for WP:GNG notability and doesn't seem to have that yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriko Ono

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Current sourcing does not have the type of in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show notability, and searches did not turn up enough either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the articles cited on the page already, there are many other reliable sources available through simple searches. Just focusing on RS of significant depth and length, here are a few: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. Passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Onel5969 $Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...)$ 17:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no question that the subject fails WP:NACTOR. DrStrauss talk 13:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Michitaro's sources need to be addressed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG per the sources provided. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 05:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Larson

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

subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Only primary unreliable sources could be found about the subject —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research before deciding on this one. I found good sources and added them. There is a mention in the New Yorker. There is a review on the Oregon Public Broadcasting site. Even better, a review in Artforum. A publication called "the New Replublic" saw fit to do a feature on one of her projects. Finally, a museum in New York called The Met has her in their permanent collection. I have never been to Metropolitan Museum of Art, but I hear it is quite a big deal and I hope to visit one day. Oh, Keep. 104.163.140.193 (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston to the permanent collections list. This means that with the Met collection included, she satisfies WP:ARTIST.104.163.140.193 (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: held in multiple major collections so passes WP:ARTIST. PamD 09:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: two major collections does it for me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON but having her work at MOMA and the Whitney demonstrate that she has real promise! (Joking of course - except about the keep - she also meets GNG.) JSFarman (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a snow keep? 104.163.140.193 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the corroborative work that has taken place. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's time to close or withdraw this. (formerly 104.163.140.193)96.127.243.41 (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per G4, G11 RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creamfinance

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Looks like it was recommended for speedy deletion in August 2016 but had the tag removed by WP:SPA prior to an admin making a speedy decision. The closest thing I can find to in-depth coverage is this from Forbes, but it is written by a contributor and not staff writer – also reads like a sponsored piece. CNMall41 (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This was deleted in last AfD, why is this WP:CORPSPAM back? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:@Piotrus: - Looks like an WP:SPA removed the prod from the page in 2015 which led to the first AfD and ultimate deletion. This recreation was recommended for speedy and another SPA removed that tag. While I normally wouldn't request, I think salting would be in order as there is a definitely an issue with editors trying to skirt the deletion process. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we don't (yet) see the independent substantive coverage and the editing around this is suspect. For all I know there might be non-newsrelease type Latvian or Polish news refs but I don't see a case for keeping. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted a CSD under CSD G4, although I assume that CSD A7 would also apply here. Maybe even Wikipedia:Spam Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Quezon City road rage incident

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

An isolated incident/crime with sensational national coverage. Fails WP:LASTING and falls under WP:SENSATION. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - isolated crime. Neutrality^talk 22:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above, isolated crime. Lepricavark (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously hoax this article.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Owens

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

Fails WP:NBIO, as tagged since August 2008. Searches found nothing more than trivial mentions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 06:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. Was about to prod this. South Nashua (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. As mentioned, no other sources available on searching which were anything more than trivial. --Jack Frost (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable person.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hack (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Ábalos

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, hasn't played in a fully professional league. Appears to fail WP:GNG, not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Soccerway reference in the article shows over 100 appearances in the both the Primera B Nacional and Primera B Metropolitana both listed as fully professional in WP:FPL thus meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. @Hack: am I missing something? Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - not sure what happened - when I looked, it was just showing Torneo Federal A appearances. Hack (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 17:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging Kerala (Magazine)

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

WP:NOTABILITY. This is a hype-laden article missing sourced notability; the only listed source that actually mentions the magazine is an event listing. Googling for "Emerging Kerala" magazine, I'm not finding significant sources (most of the gnews results are for an investor summit that had the same name.) Nat Gertler (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:A7. I removed unsourced promotional puffery and a paragraph that was totally unrelated to the magazine. What remains has no evidence of notability and makes no assertion of significance. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find any secondary sources about the magazine. It is unclear if this magazine has a wide circulation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 17:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Suresh Kumar Jakhar

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

Non-notable academic. Separately fails to meet WP:GNG & WP:BASIC. Jack Frost (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable business professor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riar Jatt

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must be deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability Spiderone 09:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, no sources, no search results in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayer clan

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must be deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 09:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, no sources, no search results in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nela Arias-Misson

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Jack Frost (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable artist. Fails to meet WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST, or WP:ANYBIO. Jack Frost (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "News" link produces two dedicated articles (one from El Pais), which appear to be WP:RS, similar in tone and content. (The articles are in Spanish, and the google translations are readable except for the inconsistent personal pronouns!) No dedicated coffee table book, but is included in one coffee table book. Newly notable, a theme of both articles. The articles need to be incorporated into this one. Tapered (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think she does meet WP:ARTIST and find the article in El Pais convincing. There are mentions of two exhibitions, a retrospective in 1973 and a show with with Jean Dubuffet and Lucio Fontana. Mduvekot (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at Google books I see that she is included in many indexes of latin-American artists, a couple Who's Who indexes and numerous books. Clearly notable.104.163.140.193 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she appears to be listed in two reference works, of American, and of Latin American, artists. THat is surely a touchstone of notability, non? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing the el Pais article. Seriously: you do not typically get an obituary with a flattering portrait like this in El Pais unless you were somebody-- and she was.104.163.140.193 (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm surprised Jack Frost could conclude this is a non-notable artist. Next time round, it might be useful to look for sources before going for AfD.--Ipigott (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BEFORE applies here. Passes WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. The El Pais article alone is enough. Edwardx (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mihret Abebe

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

This page functionally has no sources. The one listed source is a non-working link. It appears that at best it makes a passing mention to Abebe. No sources that move anywhere near providing the indepdent, reliable 3rd party indepth coverage of her needed to pass GNG have been identified. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried correcting the problems mentioned below by John. I think the article no longer warrants deletion. Turtlewong (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one dedicated article fr/ WP:RS, other sources are neither. The search links at top yield no more potential sources. Time to go. Tapered (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 08:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 100,000,000 people in Ethiopia, in combination with the evidence of sources added to the article, topic satisfies WP:ANYBIO#1. Unscintillating (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we've never considered location or whatever about it as a factor of notability, certainly not in modeling, and what matters is if there's independent notability, of which this article shows nothing but a mere pageant participation and its temporary involvement. WP:ANYBIO is a suggestive guideline, not policy, and that itself says there's no guarantee all subjects are notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Basic and WP:ANYBIO Does not appear to be anything notable about the subject. Current sources do nothing to establish notability as 2 are not independent and one doesn't even mention subject.

Ethiopian Review -Press release bio. "Non-independent sources - Press Releases".
LinkedIn - self-published
My Kiru - subject not mentioned

G-searches is provides nothing of substance mostly social media sites and PR . CBS527^Talk 22:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dangerous Woman (album). czar 17:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greedy (song)

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

The article fails WP:NSONGS, charted in two non-notable positions as an album track. All the "critical reception" about it being a disco-pop is already on Dangerous Woman (album)'s section Music and lyrics. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dangerous Woman (album) per nominator. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commentt not sure if this should be delated: Rap-Up, Bustle and Spin magazine covered this song only. But once again that is in the composition section. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect a nomination for deletion is a great mistake, you could created a discussion inside of the article talk page. So, I really wanted the permanence of the article. But I believe that a redirect to Dangerous Woman (album) should be more acceptable and the right thing to do, and in case of future release, the article will be reopen to expansion. LikeGaga (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Jack Frost (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Braderman

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

Fails to meet any of the filmmaker notability criteria. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Jack Frost (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a passage on her in Jewish Identities in American Feminist Art: Ghosts of Ethnicity, in Guilty Pleasures: Feminist Camp from Mae West to Madonna, Seeing Through the Eighties: Television and Reaganism and so on. It appears to be her 1986 feminist video art piece Joan Does Dynasty which was particularly notable. For me, there's enough in Gbooks about her to satisfy GNG. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:FILMMAKER4b has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. The Whitney Biennial is very significant. Mduvekot (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point and to that I would add MoMA Presents: Joan Braderman’s The Heretics, shown quite a few years after the creation of the work in question -- a good indication of lasting notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Whitney Biennale qualifies as one of the most significant exhibitons out there. Meets WP:ARTIST. 104.163.140.193 (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is an incredibly important figure in the history of video art. She is professor emerita at Hampshire College and has been awarded some of the most prestigious grants available to artists in the United States. She has had solo screenings of her films at the Museum of Modern Art and has been in the Whitney Biennial. I've added a bunch of sources and more information. Situated (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ARTIST and WP:FILMMAKER. Hmlarson (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No question about notability. The Whitney Biennial does it. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigue Akl

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

None of the teams that Akl has played in are in leagues that would grant him notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played for the Lebanese national team and currently plays in the highest professional league in the Philippines. Meets GNG: [16] [17] --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I just realized that Wikipedia notability sports, which appears to be a firm guideline, says something very different than what is posted at the basketball Wikiproject page. I made this nominarion having fully read the notability for sports guidelines for basketball. It has an explicit list of leagues that can be used. The Philippine Basketball association is not on the list at all. It then mentions getting picked in the first two rounds of the NBA draft. The last part mentions ways that one can be notable throgh the continental basketball association and the NBA development league. Which go much higher than just participating. No where in the guidelines for basketball at notability sports does it say playing on a national team makes on notable and nothing in the guidelines suggests there is any other standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced either of the spurces cited by PageantUpdater count. This statement on baseball players would seem to apply elsewhere "Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability." Akl does not meet any of the criteria set out at the notability for sports section. The first article pageant updater found is from an extremly gossipy source that I do not think meets most definitions of a reliable source. The second is not the level of "in depth" coverage that is needed to pass GNG. GNG is not met by passing one line mentions and it is the criteria at notability sports that are the actual guidelines with very tight lists of which leagues qualify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the baseball statement that applies to basketball. The basketball guideline was written knowing full well that many other players outside the relatively small number of leagues cited are also notable. That said, I agree that the player must pass GNG Anne have not had a chance to research this particular case Rikster2 (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. If he had competed for Lebanon in the Olympic games, that would confer notability. That's not the case. At this time, however unfortunately, the PBA does not confer notability through WP:NBASKETBALL in the English Wikipedia. Jacona (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing my delete vote as it appears this player may meet gng.

Keep. Enough sources exist to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG, and it appears that there is a somewhat ragged community concensus that playing for a national team is in itself sufficient. For these reasons, I've changed my vote to keep. Jacona (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's another source: [18]. I'm sure there must be something useful from Lebanese sources, too, but the content from the Philippines is the easiest to find. Zagalejo^^^ 03:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some promising sources. WP:OSE isn't really an argument, but all the players except one who play for the Lebanon Basketball side have articles. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tungsten Network

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Sources seem to consist of press releases/PR, primary sources, and such. If you disagree, please explain how it meets the notability guidelines in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because...". Thank you, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the guidance. To give a little background on why I created this article in the first place, I started by finding the OB10 page on Wikipedia, and was considering updating and improving it. Looking deeper, I found that OB10 had been acquired by Tungsten Network in 2013. I was hoping to create a page for the newer iteration of the company, and then either merge or redirect the OB10 page into the new one. With the recent improvements, this is what I see:

---- This article meets the criteria Wikipedia:Notability (companies) for "Publicly traded corporations" because it is freely traded on the London Stock Exchange as (TUNG), Tungsten Corporation Plc.

---- This article meets the criteria Wikipedia:Notability (companies) for "Publicly traded corporations" by establishing notability via third-party citations from the London Stock Exchange, Bloomberg, The Yorkshire Post, Computer Weekly, PYMNTS, Spend Matters UK/Europe, ProactiveInvestors, and (debatably) Trade and Forfaiting Review.

---- This article meets the criteria for Wikipedia:General notability guideline, as no original research was needed to extract this content, while the article makes use of reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I'd like to do this right, and as a relatively new Wikipedian, I'm hoping for some guidance. Is this what was needed to establish notability and preserve the article, or is more needed before the Sunday deadline? Will pieces of this article need to be trimmed/culled before it can be launched?

...Notes/comments on updates since the article was flagged...

Looking into the notability guidelines you've cited, I see that along with pointing out that the company is publicly owned, it was both relevant and important to also note that they're listed on the London Stock Exchange -- I've added that piece in, which I feel does a lot to help to better establish the company's notability.

Additionally, I've added a set of better citations. The current list includes third-party citations from the London Stock Exchange, Bloomberg, The Yorkshire Post, Computer Weekly, PYMNTS, Spend Matters UK/Europe, ProactiveInvestors, and (debatably) Trade and Forfaiting Review. I'll make an effort to continue to develop this in the next few days as well, but my house is being painted, which has been disruptive to working on things like this at home, and I had originally planned further development of this article as a longer-running, ongoing process. The company, in its current form (after the acquisition of OB10 and the 2013 rebanding/transition to Tungsten Network) is still relatively new, and I've seen articles and new sources being published fairly regularly. I imagine that the company's notability will continue to develop as time goes on. MushuNeak (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only argument I find compelling is being listed on LSE. The secondary sources coverage is either in passing (see my comments on Economist/Computer Weekly below), or poor, ex. Yorkshire Post [19] "article" seems like a rewritten press release - no journalistic value whatsoever. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm tossing this in, per my reasons above. Learning more about this process as I read other discussions. MushuNeak (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Existing sources to show it easily clears WP:GNG. The fact that articles about a business are in business press is unremarkable and expected, not reason to ignore them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eggishorn: Which sources? Please note that per my comment below this article has some clearly fake references (like The Economist article which has a single passing sentence on the company) or the Computer Weekly one which doesn't mention it at all. What sources convinced you, through their in-depth, reliable coverage of this company, that it is notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, Yorkshire Post, Growth Company and Spend Matters, among others. Most especially, the Computer Weekly' article, which is extensive. I would return your own caution about reading the sources before !voting. The Computer Weekly article is all about the flagship product under a previous corporate name, as the other sources document. It alone is nearly sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several of the sources are clearly WP:RS, e.g. Bloomberg, The Economist and Computer Weekly. Tip - link to them in the references. There's a big difference between a clean WOT report and a link to the Wiki article about the source. Narky Blert (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Narky Blert: I am very fond of The Economist. Unfortunately, TE article is NOT ABOUT THE company. IT just quotes one of its workers in a single short sentence ([20]). It is totally irrelevant for establishing notability. Being mentioned in passing by reliable sources is not enough for GNG/NCORP. Please, read the sources before saying they are sufficient. I also hope that the closing admin remembers this is not a vote. Regarding Bloomberg, we have three links: one seem a generic directory entry, which is not considered sufficient (since the entry criteria are not clear) and they all seem down ATM for me and not in Internet Archive, so if you can access them please review them in more detail for us; and then the Computer Weekly one - which DOES NOT MENTION THE COMPANY AT ALL: [21]. Setting aside inaccessible Bloomberg pieces, the other two sources you quote are pure red herrings - they sound reliable, but they are fakes, not establishing notability, added there as a common spammer tactic of WP:BOMBARDMENT, in hope that people will see "plenty of reliable references", skip on accessing them and vote keep to the spammers delight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be a run of the mill company with about $30 million in annual revenues. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawal in light of new sources and comments in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 12:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Plant Nutrition Colloquium

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

Dearth of secondary sources.Prob. only important to a very specific field?? Winged Blades^Godric 13:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not secondary. All sources are either the websites of the colloquium itself, or they are the proceedings of the colloquium published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is necessary to reference scientific journal proceedings from the early conferences, as the IPNC did not have websites in the 1950s (for obvious reasons). As stated in the text, the colloquium is attended by over 800 international researchers and is the most important conference in the field of plant nutrition. Roger.mcdonald (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger.mcdonald:--Well dearth means "an absence of".Winged Blades^Godric 14:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added secondary sources, including a book written about the IPNC which is for sale at Amazon Roger.mcdonald (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not real familiar with this area but the Colloquium papers are formally published and seem to be cited regularly by others. In that sense, it seems to function as a notable scientific journal.Glendoremus (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a well-known meeting with publications. The papers are peer-reviewed. The International Plant Nutrition Council which organizes the meetings is an elected body of senior scientists in the field. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Hemmatnia

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

notability is not clear and provable, nothing important could be found about him in Farsi or English language Mardetanha ^talk 10:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw it seems user is asking people in different languages to create article for him, at least several interwiki's has been created in past week in different languages, as far as I can see he is trying to use Wikipedia as source to advertise himself Mardetanha ^talk 10:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think , this article is promotional as Ebrahim Hemmatnia already has become a celebrity and This article is live on Wikipedia by following all guidelines more than 2 years , nothing wrong on this article but why it is nominated for deletion ?

Kalamya (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange and doubtful request and the intentions of Mardetanha is not clear. This page is solid and these are just some of the hundred articles and TV items about it in English and Farsi. Here is the list of references that has solid information about the Ebrahim Hemmatnia page:

Digitalexpo 17:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has only 3 edits, I am pretty much sure he is connected to owner of the page Mardetanha ^talk 18:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete it the page has hundreds of reliable sources where some are collected by editors and some are not. He or she might have not many edits but he /she has a point your (#mardetanha) intentions are for me also not clear because you are trying badly to delete a solid page of a public figure… To be frankly I have some doubts about your honesty in this page . Kalamya (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about a public figure. He holds a world record. Why should we remove it?!

I don’t understand the reason why to delete this page, it seems to me more personal intentions by the requester “Mardetanha” who gives incorrect arguments. I think we must not lose this page. Alexjoest 02:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject's meatpuppets need to stop the "But he's a celebrity! I found reliable sources! He's got a world record! Don't delete!" nonsense. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His article was deleted from Farsi Wikipedia because of notability Mardetanha ^talk 07:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Now could you make a steward request on Meta to have the rest of this cross-wiki mess deleted? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t delete. I’m afraid that you #Mardetanha have used your influences inside Islamic state of Iran to delete the Farsi version of this article, you seem to be an Iranian too according to your user page. Is that right? This is a clear personal or political intention because other languages of this article still remain. I'm now really concerned. One should warn the Wikipedia administration about this suspicious developments.

Kalamya (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Langdell

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

Subject fails to meet WP:BASIC, WP:MILNG or WP:GNG. I believe it fails on WP:BIO1E as well. Jack Frost (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being the oldest is an accident of time. Langdell does not meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG; this is not a statement of disrespect.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect name/title; not notable and trivial as a stand alone article; addendum: agree the name should be made a redirect to USS Arizona Memorial, as suggested. Kierzek (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps worth a note on USS Arizona (BB-39) --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at newspapers.com, 47 newspapers published his obituary (106 results, but many are from the same paper). To me, this is pretty close to notable, and I'd advocate for the article's creator to be given a little time in case there is more material. I think it might be appropriate for this title to redirect to USS Arizona Memorial (where there is currently an image of Langdell). Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comes close to meeting WP:SOLDIER too, for having "played an important role in a significant military event". Deserves at least a mention in the USS Arizona (BB-39) article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure how being there equates to "played an important role"! That would mean anybody who was present at a major battle would pass. Hardly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even the last survivor. Junior officer who just happened to be present at a major event, just like millions of others throughout history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect per my comment above, with no prejudice to developing into an article should more sources be found later. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete unless expanded to show he did something notable. The article is just an obituary of a NN sailor. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Mz7 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Amarcha

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

The article has two sources, one is YouTube, and the other is a digital music distributor, that looks to be at about the YouTube level, but is in no way a reliable source about her. This article falls way, way, way below even the most minimal passing of the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Capurso

AfDs for this article:

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

Directed a few non-notable movies. Even the director himself is not satisfying WP:FILMMAKER. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I note this was previously deleted. Still fails WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Directed features and music videos for Lisa M, T"he Queen of Spanish Rap"-- The Mexico International Film Festival is a major festival and his film won an award there.Masterknighted (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Masterknighted (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's hard to find anyone in Queens connected to Buffalo Bill Cody. Capurso connects up to other movie people too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGuy (talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was deleted as a result of an AfD discussion back in 2011, and other than some non-notable shorts and a non-notable documentary (and a tv film now in post), hasn't done anything more to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reference-bombing doesn't add notability. Nor is notability inherited, especially from a video about a song ("La Suprema") which has no article. I also have my doubts about the notability of Against the Wall (2010 film), not part of this discussion.

"It's hard to find anyone in Queens connected to Buffalo Bill Cody" - or in Much-Piddling-in-the-Marsh, England, come to that. Narky Blert (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Mz7 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Aquitania

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

The article has two sources. One is IMBd, which is not a reliable source to show notability. The other is an article that basically says "this guy has had a lot of minor acting roles, but he is studying filmmaking, so he might be notable as a filmmaker so some sort in the future." So no indication at all that he has yet risen to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to AAA (band). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shinjiro Atae

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

No secondary sources demonstrating notability. No sign of truly multiple significant roles in notable productions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to AAA (band), the group he is a member of. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Draft. Author has also requested "Move to Draft" on his talk page Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lacy (musician)

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

Was an unsourced blp, but now a few non-reliable sources have been added. Unable to find in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Should probably be redirected to The Internet (band), but an editor keeps restoring the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still no reliable sources for a BLP. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are self-references; mostly include own tweets, interviews, and uploads on personal YouTube channel. Seems to be a promotional article. ——Chalk19 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More reliable sources have been added. The self-references (i.e. tweets and YouTube videos) have been deleted. I apologize for creating the article initially without seeing if one should have been created about the musician and also for adding non-reliable sources. Bmegrl9113 (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space (or User space), and give the usual amount of time for a draft to be developed. bd2412 T 12:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: BD2412 was canvassed to this discussion by Bmegrl9113. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would absolutely favor a move to draft space. The article's creator has been diligently making an effort to improve the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Onel5969: Does moving the article mean deleting it, and then have it recreated as a draft? Anyway, I see that most of the additional sources don't deal with Lacy personally, in the first place, so coverage, although improved, is still lagging behind a level considered to be sufficient. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi Chalk19. No, if the consensus is to draftify, the closing admin will close the AfD, then simply move the existing mainspace article into draftspace, so Bmegrl19113 can continue to attempt to improve it. I agree with your assessment of the additional sourcing. When I did my WP:BEFORE, I couldn't find enough in-depth sourcing to warrant keeping the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patriots Museum of Brazilian Emigration

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

small local specialized museum. No article on it in the czech WP. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only English reference is to a Facebook page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So.. you mean that all small local specialized museums which don't have articles on foreign WPs are not notable? And that only English references are acceptable? This is an interesting institution and there is a possibility to compile an interesting article based on reliable and independent sources I list below. Some of them are media with national coverage, some of them are "local", but definitely acceptable. Deleting of this information would be a disservice to Wikipedia, in my opinion.

Muzeum vystěhovalectví v Náhlově mapuje putování Čechů za brazilským štěstím (Czech Radio) (in Czech)
Česká stopa v Brazílii (Respekt) (in Czech)
Muzeum vystěhovalectví otevřelo nový sál (Deník) (in Czech)
Krajanské muzeum vystěhovalectví do Brazílie v Náhlově u Ralska (Deník) (in Czech)
Ekonom z Ralska pátrá v Brazílii i po emigrantech z Českolipska (Deník) (in Czech)

--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ridiculous. Let's start with WP:NONENG: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed". Furthermore, there is no requirement that an article exist on another language server. We can also see, per Vejvančický above, that the topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which therefore meets the general notability guideline. C 679 06:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do seem to have more than enough significant coverage in Czech reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have significant reliable source based coverage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Cobb

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

Roy Cobb was a soldier in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) who never rose above the rank of private, who was never awarded a decoration (except a Purple Heart), and who never did anything on the record remarkable after being discharged from the Army. He fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not as a private in the army that the person is notable, but as a character in major TV series Band of Brothers. --do ncr am 04:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not convinced he meets WP:GNG. Most search results seem to be wikis, forum posts or user reviews. Not very much from major secondary sources at all. PriceDL (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable for stand alone article; brief mention of him in the BOB article is the proper placement; otherwise, trivial. Kierzek (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Band_of_Brothers_(miniseries)#Cast_and_characters where the subject is mentioned; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's important, I think, to distinguish between the real men and their fictional representations in the HBO series. "Roy Cobb" in episode four of the series criticizes a replacement for his authorized wearing of a Presidential Unit Citation. There is nothing in the Ambrose book to support that event. The script writers needed a bad boy and they found one in Cobb.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I can see that makes him more noteworthy than any of the thousands of guys who served. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As written, the article is about the real life person, and not about the character in the mini-series. Either, however, does not meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable soldier, with an unexceptional list of medals. I thought of recommending a redirect to Band of Brothers (miniseries) - but, that article suggests that the TV series took the name and fictionalised the man. Not notable as a person, not notable as a fictional character, insulting to his memory if fictionalised. Narky Blert (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Narky Blert. The real man was not notable, and the fictional portrayal is unflattering, to say the least. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per G4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Liner RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Liner Bus Transport,Inc.

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

Non-notable bus brand. For a start, the article seems to have no idea what it's actually about: there are about five or six different names used, and the bolded Mindanao Star has its own article anyway. Furthermore, it was created by Yanson100 (a username with clear COI implications) and therefore is probably little more than advertising. The only external link is to a dead website; I can't even find any evidence this brand exists. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page is as the same to the deleted page Advanced Liner and has been discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Liner. Bumbl_loid 14:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Martinucci

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

~~No indication of notability. The only sources are two reference works that have short CVs. They do not suffice to confirm the promotional content.~~ My own search for sources didn't find anything better. Huon (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if he sang Radames at the Arena of Verona, with Maria Chiara as Aida, as this suggests, he is notable. Just find more sources and reduce POV. I have no time today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've rewritten this completely with multiple new references, which incidentally are not at all hard to find. He was a very notable tenor in the 1970s and 1990s, singing leading roles in the world's major opera houses, including La Scala, the Metropolitan Opera, Teatro Colón, Royal Opera House, etc. He has entries in both the Grove Dictionary of Opera and The La Scala Encyclopedia of the Opera. He clearly passes Criteria 1 for actors and Criteria 6 for musicians, and if he's notable enough to have entries in two major reference works on opera, he's certainly notable enough to have an entry in Wikipedia. There are also press articles, which I have not used in the article, e.g. this from La Repubblica; multiple excerpts of Italian press reviews of his performances in Opera 2000. Annuario dell'opera lirica in Italia, Opera '98. Annuario dell'opera lirica in Italia, Opera '91. Annuario dell'opera lirica in Italia, etc.; a review in the New York Times of his performance in the title role of Andrea Chénier. These are just a few of what's available. Clicking on his WorldCat identity in the authority control at the foot of the article reveals multiple recordings, in all of which he sings the leading tenor role. Huon, could you perhaps take a look at the new version of the article and give an opinion. Voceditenore (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn, and a hearty "thank you" to Voceditenore who improved the article far beyond what I had imagined might be possible. Huon (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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