Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 September	6 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Krok

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

Individual not notable enough in the public eye for wikipedia article Player765 (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2018 (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/2018 September 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Individual has been written about in multiple national media outlets, in South Africa and Australia. OP, do you have a conflict of interest? Only two edits to your account, both related to nominating this article for deletion. Greenman (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a coatrack to talk about his taxation issues, essentially one event. With the one exception of the article about his father/family were he is only given minor mentions everything is about that tax case. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a coatrack of a hit job if I ever saw one. Notability is inherited neither from your rich dad nor from a lawsuit against you. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single event. N is not inherited. Nothing special here at all that I can see. Aoziwe (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2018 (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 as a hoax. — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Villain-Women (Marvel Comics)

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

This is unreferenced and, surprisingly for a Marvel topic, I wasn't able to find any coverage of this team elsewhere. Neither the team nor any of the agents listed are mentioned at A-Force. I don't see any mention of the team at, say Carnage (comics) or Titania (Marvel Comics). The article was draftifyed in July but copy-paste recreated without further editing in August. I think that any verifiable information should be added to A-Force instead of this article, though I couldn't verify any, but a redirect wouldn't be all that valuable since it has a parenthetical disambiguation and nothing links to it. › Mortee _talk 20:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This shouldn't be put back to Draft space either, because the nom's WP:BEFORE search indicates that it couldn't become an article no matter how much work was put into it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I've nominated this as a blatant hoax. Kirby cannot have created in 2016 given he died in 1994, at the most blatant!--Killer Moff (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No evidence that this even exists. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2018 (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 00:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Copeman

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:ENT. reddogsix (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 13:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 11:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When the search on Google ends up with a doctor named Michael Copeman instead of an actor...well. Analyzing the articles that came in the article: The first is just a biography site of his that does not establish notability, the second came up as malicious site in my browser, the third and fourth are not even focused on the said actor and the fifth has absolutely nothing to do with him but the reboot of a movie. So it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR easily. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet English Wikipedia's notability standards to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JoaquinVlogs

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

Fails WP:GNG; non-notable YouTuber with no readily identifiable independent WP:RS coverage. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has 1.3 million youtube subs, which means he likely has substantial converge for WP:GNG. The thing that's confusing to me that he's getting an English Wikipedia article before one at Tagalog Wikipedia article, as that's what most of his content seems to be in. - Scarpy (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scarpy: In response to your comment, most online Philippine media publications are either wholly in English or primarily in English (with only some Tagalog websites, usually Facebook or Entertainment pages and the like). As such, when looking for coverage about Philippine-related subjects, English sources are perfectly acceptable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 01:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep due to YouTuber having a subscriber base slightly over the 1 million mark. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indepth coverage from reliable sources. All I can find are short mentions, not indepth articles about him. --GRuban (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having over a million subscribers is nothing that significant nowadays. He is ranked 5,300 in subscriber rank and 19,995 in video view rank according to Social Blade - [1], there are thousands of people who are ranked higher but don't have an article on them. Sourcing would be the key here to establish notability. Also his channel name is Cong TV rather than CongTV. Hzh (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus is evident... Re-listing once again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Number of views/subs alone don't signify notability and other than these this person has no significant coverage in any reliable sources.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Reliable sources found also no significant coverage on subject. ShunDream (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject fails GNG and all biography-related tests. Also, this article is highly promotional. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Number of views does not meet criteria for inclusion. No coverage in RS sources.MLKLewis (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2018 (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 per WP:PROF – Joe (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert K. Dellenbach

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to minor name checks, quotations from the subject (e.g. [2], [3]), and passing mentions, none of which establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Furthermore, the article is entirely based upon primary sources, which also do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete A search turned up one LDS press release and a quotation each in two Deseret News stories which do not establish notability. Fails WP:BASIC. Also, this Wiki article reads like a resumé. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As president of what was then Alaska Methodist University, he passes Academic Notability point 6.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:PROF as president of Alaska Pacific University in 1975–1976: [4]. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given dispute via alternate criteria of WP:PROF
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a former president of Alaska Pacific U. it appears he meets WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2018 (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. Due to low participation, the article may be undeleted on request at WP:REFUND. Mz7 (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hembree (band)

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

Not a notable band. Doing the background music for an Apple commercial does not meet WP:NMUSIC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 11:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2018 (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) --Hammersoft (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fjölvar

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

~~Seems to be a copy paste common WP:MILL "mythological creature" article. Fails WP:GNG and has no reliable sourcing.~~AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a quick search and added some citations. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expand. Like just about every other entity in Norse mythology, there's significant coverage to be found regarding the figure's etymology and likely comparative discussion as well. It's just a matter of digging it up. I'll check Simek, Lindow, and Orchard and it expand the article from there later today. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the addition of new citations and the possibility of more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that the article has been expanded. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after expansion work by Frayae. - Dammit_steve (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG now, no other reason for deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing as the article meets GNG. Thank you Frayae. An admin can now properly close this. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:05, 8 September 2018 (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. There is consensus, albeit a weak one, for keeping this. The demonstration of coverage in reliable sources has not been adequately refuted. Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Vega

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

Author of several children's books, but received very little coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO. Brad v 03:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR. Her books, including "Click Here", seem to have won a lot of awards. There are more than four thousand library holdings of her books: [5]. There is a biography of her in volume 174 of "Something About The Author": [6] [7]. There is some coverage in GNews (303 Magazine). There are book reviews in School Library Journal [8] (review of "Access Denied") [9] (review of "Click Here") etc. And there is other coverage in GBooks and elsewhere, such as [10] [11] [12] [13]. James500 (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be an argument in favour of keeping an article on the book, but none of that establishes the notability of the author. Either way, can you please add some sources to one or both of the articles while you're working on this? I'll happily withdraw the nomination if we can find sources, but I couldn't. Brad v 00:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of that establishes the notability of the author. We have her biography, reviews and coverage of more than one of her books, awards for more than one of her books (eg "Facts of Life #31" seems to have won, in particular, the Colorado Book Award in 2009, and the Colorado Top Hand Award), a high level of library holdings for her several books generally. It is not as if the coverage was entirely about that one book or that book was the only popular one. And we generally regard an authors' output as being part of the same topic, since notable authors are by definition notable for their works of authorship. James500 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete, I am not finding WP:SIGCOV of her or her books in reliable SECONDARY sources. We need to show that either she has attracted INDEPTH coverage, or that one or more of her books has gotten enough attention to carry her past WP:AUTHOR She does have a number of books out with real publishing houses, but I'm fialing to find SECONDARY. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's books have been reviewed by both Kirkus Reviews and Publisher's Weekly. At least two of her titles have won awards. I cleaned up the article some and added content and reliable sources. Newspaper and magazine coverage satisfy WP:GNG. Subject easily passes notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think she meets WP:AUTHOR as I can't find additional coverage and the links already there are (1) university faculty page, primary source; (2) short review which says nothing about the author; (3) a review which is a deadlink for me; (4) short article about Vega which looks like WP:ROUTINE coverage; (5) has one sentence on Vega; (6) short reviews of her books in a trade publication; (7) list of library award winners in which she was an Honor winner - looks like it means a runner-up, but I am not sure; (8) her book listed on the shortlist for another award. These might be helpful if we were looking for notability of her books, but they are not WP:SIGCOV of her - in fact I've rarely seen so little coverage of a writer. Tacyarg (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional coverage has been linked to above. ROUTINE only applies to events: Denise Vega is a person, not an event. The reviews are not short. AUTHOR makes it very clear that book reviews and similar sources count towards the notability of an author. Even if they didn't, all that would be achieved by that kind of objection is a page move to something like "Bibliography of Denise Vega". This would seem to be a waste of time because a notable author is by definition notable for their books. The level of coverage is actually good for a writer: many notable books, including a lot of bestsellers, get no reviews at all. James500 (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Looks like it's a little WP:TOOSOON and for lack WP:SIGCOV. Reviews in Pub Weekly and Kirkus are inadequate to pass WP:AUTHOR. One of her books was reviewed in the education sectioon of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. that 's real, so is the regional Colorado Book Awards in category: young adult fiction. In addition there are a couple of articles in local media that cover her as one of a nyumber of local authors. It's not quite enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory, as an FYI, Publishers Weekly is renowned as "the bible of the book business" and an independent international news magazine about the literary world. Opining that PW and Kirkus - also a respected book review publication - is "inadequate to pass WP:AUTHOR" does not compute. While the Seattle PI review is "real," so are PW and Kirkus Reviews. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the thing about PW is that it runs a snippet review of pretty much everything a reputable house is promoting. Yes, it's a functional way to scan upcoming releases. I certainly take it seriously when PW profiles a book or author, or discusses a book in one of their what's-gonna-be-hot-this-season, or in a group article on up-and-coming-teen-novelists, or similar. But to get a MILL snippet review in PW doesn't mean much more than: this book is being published.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Public relations folks practically beg PW to write reviews; PW does not review everything a traditional publisher promotes. All those reviews - for every book they publish? - certainly would overflow in the publication. And that would be news to publishers and authors. The subject's books have been published by Hatchette and Penguin Random House, two of the "big 5" traditional publishing houses - a big deal, unless you also believe it is easy to be published by the top publishers in the industry. Also, the WorldCat catalog shows that the subject's book Click Here alone has 644 copies in public libraries. Before I improved on the subject's article and decided on "Keep," I searched for reviews, news coverage of the subject and books, and WorldCat and found enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misquote me, I wrote "pretty much everything a reputable house is promoting."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I paraphrased. My apologies. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep WP:HEY, I searched a little harder and found more, we have the old problem here of a much too common name, too many people named Denise Vega in the worls, and adding words like "click" or "book" doesn't help much. Article needs cleanyup, tightening, Still, I think she scrapes by.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: I found a 2017 review from the School Library Journal, a monthly literary magazine with reviews by librarians. I added it to the article. I too had to search a bit harder to find it, as her name appears to get confused with Vegas. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2018 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shape Security

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP, such as self-promotional reports by the company. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search finds routine coverage and promotion, not WP:SIGCOV, so fails WP:CORPDEPTH as nominator indicates. Additionally, article provides little information that is non-promotional, and engages in WP:OVERCITE to link to promotional sources. Bakazaka (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Henry Selick. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadow King

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

Subject is an unfinished and unreleased film. Per WP:NFF canceled/unreleased films should not have their own article. A search comes up with press releases from 2013 and talk about maybe restarting it in 2016, but nothing current. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like the last AfD ended with the consensus it should be merged, but I don't see where that ever happened. Barring any major progress on the film since 2015, I would say that this should be merged and redirected to the director's article. So far it looks like the only true news was that it's still being shopped around so a lot of this could be summarized into a few lines of text or a paragraph in the director's article. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would of course recommend against stating definitively that any of the voice talent is signed for the film, as a lot has happened between 2013 and today. Some of the voice talent may have changed their mind or whatever studio picks this up (if it gets picked up again) may not want some of the actors in the cast. For example, some companies may see Jeffrey Tambor as box office poison. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. NFF, try the merge again. Szzuk (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Target is Henry Selick. Szzuk (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge again and redirect to director article Henry Selick as a categorized {{R from film}}, fails the notability guideline for films. Sam Sailor 06:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Fine Art

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

Non-notable business, does not satisfy WP:NCORP. It's relatively hard for a commercial art gallery to become notable by our standards, but a few major ones do manage it; this is not one of them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please search variations of keywords. For eg. HOFA London, HOFA Gallery. One will find ample sources in Google News. Accesscrawl (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apparently no WP:BEFORE was not complied with. See [14][15][16] Kraose (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two crypto trade rags, which do not help toward N per WP:ORGCRIT. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the third source, i.e. the interview, has been analysed in my comment as Ref 17. In fact, the other two blogs have also been already discussed below. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of references; I have dropped a few into the article and expanded it a bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritchie333, the two refs you dropped here were"

this brief listing in a "thing to do in London in July"

a cryptoblog, which made it the third such ref cited. All three fail ORGCRIT under trade rags, and we are generally shunning refs like these pursuant to to the crypto general sanctions which in turn arose from all the promotional pressure and hype around cryptocurrencies. There are currently none used in this page.

Would you please consider your !vote? This does not meet WP:NCORP as updated back in March. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, all of the sources mentioned above have also been discussed by me in my comment below. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, another citation added, meets GNG. Likely move to House of Fine Art per WP:NCTHE after this discussion has ended. Sam Sailor 18:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Delete per the comments below. Sam Sailor 19:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Sam Sailor, the source added by you is a user-generated content. It was submitted by a university student, who isn't a credentialed person, although 'she spends her time dancing with her bollywood fusion team' – see details at the bottom of the article. The site has obviously no signs of editorial oversight, and it openly accepts articles/information from all & sundry. So this source isn't reliable. Feel free to discuss at Talk:The House of Fine Art about it & regarding my other changes. BTW, the article was published by a cryptocurrency-promoting site, and that's where the article's main focus lies, although it does dedicate around thee lines to the HOFA. But that doesn't even matter, as this project doesn't accept such content.

I wanted to comment here after cleaning up the article, but the page creator is indulging in unexplained reverts, which has halted my editing there. I've partially cleaned up the page from redundant sources without removing any content from the page – see this revision & my comments at the article's talk page. Once they stop their disruption, I will clean it up further. BTW, now I am logging out for today, as I've already spent hours waiting for their response. Anyway, both the page creator & the AfD's participants are welcome to discuss my edits at the article's talk page. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not for cleanup. Read WP:VOLUNTEER, WP:DEADLINE. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with these essays, but read my comment again to understand its context. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I just went through this carefully. The page as it stands now is like this. There were two sources that were simply publishing the same press release. There was an artist's website, and the website of another gallery that didn't actually mention HOFA. Two bad crypto blogs. The Forbes piece was a Forbes contributor blog (so not useful for N) and on top of that, was entirely derivative of the Evening Standard piece with no additional useful information. What is left, is an interview with an artist exhibiting there (not useful for N), a "here's what to do in London" brief listing, which is not useful for N, and a brief blurb about Ilhwa Kim’s Sensory Portrait show opening, which is also not useful for N. The Evening Standard piece is useful. That is one source. We really should delete, as the promotional pressure with all the bad sourcing is very, very clear. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Although Jytdog has already cleaned up the article properly, just for the clarity of the participants, I am choosing this old revision, which contains all of the 17 citations, so that they won't feel that any source was overlooked. My analysis shows that even if we include the Forbes source, there is nothing more than trivial coverage here.

I will start my analysis with the most in-depth sources of the article:

LES (Ref 2):

The main focus of this source lies on cryptocurrency, although it does have few independent bits about the gallery:

"A Mayfair art gallery claims to be the first to put up its entire collection for purchase with cryptocurrency...(HOFA), which sells high-end fine art...Gallery prices start at about £4,000 but rise to about £250,000 for pieces by Italian sculptor Stefano Bombardieri. The collection includes works by French sculptor Richard Orlinski and American Hunt Slonem...The exhibition will start in London at the beginning of October..

Note that this source is cited twice in the revision chosen by me, i.e. this & the Ref 11 are one and the same.

Luxe Life (Ref 15):

This one is a puffery piece, and reads like a press release. In fact, according to the article's talk page discussion, it is one. Anyway, this is what it mentions:

Following the success of their first gallery in London, they have since opened a gallery in the stunning location of Psarou Beach in Mykonos, a third gallery in Mayfair and have now taken their brand to the US, with a gallery in the plush setting of West Hollywood...To mark the opening of the new Mayfair gallery, a summer exhibition titled ‘The Edit’ will be taking place from 4 July – 8 August 2018....Headline artists include Romina Ressia, Tian, Robert Standish and Marco Grassi.

Rest of the article just gives details of the artists, which are irrelevant here.

Forbes (Ref 1):

This news article was published two days after the LES source, and it basically repeats the same info covered in the LES, and repeats a line of the Luxe Life source. The main focus of the source again lies on cryptocurrency, and it includes HOFA spokesperson's comments, so this one isn't independent. Anyway, here's the only details which are different from the LES source:

...inspirational works by the likes of Zhuang Hong Yi...HOFA first noticed a demand for Bitcoin payments last year and decided to approach the digital money platform Uphold to offer a wider range of payment, and capitalize on the demand.

Now before analysing the next batch of refs, I am quoting from the note 3 of the WP:N:

It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.

Now I will list the sources which are mere copies of the above three sources, i.e. LES, Forbes, & Luxe Life sources. To start with, these copies don't count toward notability, as is clear by the WP:N quote. Anyway, once the original news regarding cryptocurrency transaction was published in LES & Forbes sources on 7 August 2018 & 9 August 2018 respectively, it was copied & published by the multiple cryptocurrency-promoting blogs/sites on 9 August 2018. Most of these sources don't have editorial oversight & they republished the same news without attribution. So, let alone counting toward notability, they seem to be in violation of the WP:COPYVIOEL:

Ref 5

This is a word-for-word copy of the Luxe Life source.

Ref 6

This is merely a listing of the The Edit exhibition, on which the Luxe Life source is focusing – this source basically summaries the Luxe Life source in two lines.

Ref 7:

This a copy of LES source.

Ref 8:

This a copy of the LES source (with attribution) – the source is providing the link to the LES article at the end under the description of "Read more here."

ref 9

This source is a user-generated content, as I've explained in my comment to Sam. In any case, it is a mere copy of the Forbes source – it just lists the price range in dollars instead of pounds.

Ref 10:

It is another yet another cryptocurrency blog with no editorial oversight, and it is a repeat of LES.

The remaining is the refbombing of artists' interviews & personal websites, which either mention the HOFA in passing or don't mention it at all:

Ref 16:

This is HOFA's website, which isn't serving any purpose, and it obviously doesn't count towards notability.

Refs regarding the artist Zhuang Hong Yi:

Ref 3:

This is an interview of the artist Zhuang Hong Yi about his solo show Radiance, which was hosted by HOFA. The interview is focusing on the work of the artist, although it does contains statements of both the artist & the HOFA's co-founder regarding their partnership. This interview might've been useful to add some info in the artist's WP article, but they don't have one. As far as HOFA is concerned, the only useful bit is that the artist worked for them. So this is a non-independent source, which doesn't count towards notability.

ref 17:

This is another interview of Zhuang regarding his aforementioned solo show Radiance. And this is the only mention of the gallery: “Radiance” runs until March 24 at the House of Fine Art (HOFA) gallery in London’s St. James district, before moving to a separate HOFA gallery in Mayfair from March 26 to April 8

Like the previous interview, it just proves that the artist worked for them.

Refs regarding the artist Ilhwa-Kims:

Ref 4:

This short article is about a South Korean artist Ilhwa Kim's solo show Sensory Portrait, and the only thing it mentions about the gallery is: "Hosted by HOFA Gallery in London". In fact, that seems like the only time this artist got coverage, and obviously they don't have a WP article.

Ref 14

This interview is also about the artist's aforementioned solo show Sensory Portrait, and the only mention that HOFA gets is the following: The Sensory Portrait exhibition at HOFA in London runs until April 17th

Refs regarding the artist Marco Grassi:

Ref 12:

This is the link of the artist's personal website, which doesn't even mention the HOFA. Why was it cited in the article?

Ref 13

This one lists his work, but there is no mention of the HOFA in it. Again, why was it cited in the article?

So, all in all, there is around 6-7 lines of semi-independent coverage, and it doesn't go beyond trivial mentions, thereby the subject is nowhere close to meeting the high standards of WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG.

PS: Participants are free to comment on my analysis, although I won't be able to spend more time here today. So I will reply to the comments tomorrow. Thanks. - ~~NitinMlk (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)~~ added a ref which I missed earlier & made some other tweaks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, for whatever reason, participants are bringing the copies of the LES source, which appeared in multiple cryptocurrency-promoting blogs/sites after that news was originally published by LES on 7 August 2018. Please also note that they count as one source – see my comment above, esp. the quote from WP:N. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:James500 please review WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGCRIT - that guideline received a major upgrade in March. As far as I can tell there is one independent source with substantial discussion of this organization, and that does not pass NCORP much less GNG. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, after analysing the sources twice, I agree that LES is the only independent source. But even its focus lies on discussing the "bitcoin trend", and it is giving coverage to all the relevant galleries, thereby allotting just around four encyclopedic lines to the subject. So, even that source is nowhere close to being in-depth. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. James500, Sam Sailor, I wonder if you are aware that WP:GNG leads to the same paragraph as WP:SIGCOV? The first sentence there is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". So perhaps, instead of merely stating "meets/satisfies GNG", you could provide evidence of where you found that significant coverage, why you think the detailed analysis of the sources provided here by NitinMlk is incorrect, and how you think that the sources you've found might satisfy WP:NCORP? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to argue when the subject obviously satisfies WP:GNG. Rzvas (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ORG is irrelevant. An art gallery is a building wherein paintings are kept. The relevant SNG is NGEO. Deletion would also violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because Maddox Street (which has a large number of listed buildings: [17]) has an article. This gallery is actually number 58. It has a fairly impressive history: [18] [19]. I should also point out that GNG has nothing to do with any SNG, and that includes ORG. James500 (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a business. It sells art. It is not a building. WP:NCORP is the appropriate N guideline here. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, an art gallery is a building. An organisation is a group of people. You cannot hang paintings on a group of people. You have to have walls. Therefore building. For this to be an organisation, you would in practice have to show that it refers to a group of people who own more than one art gallery. Otherwise "HOFA" is just a name for the building where the paintings are displayed. James500 (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. I see your confusion. OK, I fixed the content. It is clear from all the sources that HOFA is an art dealer. Art dealers need art galleries to show their wares; "art gallery" is frequently used as a shorthand to refer to the dealer -- to the business. Just oh my. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a gallery like the National Gallery or MOMA. It's a shop that sells artwork. Such shopkeepers call their shops "galleries" and themselves "dealers". Search for "58 Maddox St London W1S 1AY" to see a streetview of the doorway on a Mayfair street of shops including one other gallery. It seems to have been a dress shop when Google Streetview last went by. 92.19.30.162 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to vouch for it's notability in terms of NGEO? Are you emulating Col. Davidson? ∯WBG^converse 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP is NOT the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why you had used a A7 tag for requesting speedy deletion?[20] Rzvas (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with the policy-based rationale provided by them here. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage obviously exists per [21][22][23][24]Rzvas (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first, second, and third refs are low quality cryptocurrency blogs/trade rags, which we do not use. The last is a press release that duplicates a press release already used in the article as discussed on the talk page [[25]].. None of those are useful for N. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS = RS. Even if you think they covered something that you personally find unimportant. Rzvas (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rzvas, please note that the first two sources provided by you are mere copies of the LES source, which appeared in multiple cryptocurrency-promoting blogs/sites after that news was originally published by LES on 7 August 2018. In fact, the third source provided by you mentions the HOFA & gives a link to the main article at the Read more label, and that main article is already analysed by me as Ref 7 above, which is again copy of the LES source. And the fourth source provided by you was already discussed in my above comment in the form of Ref 5. Please also note that they count as one source – see my analysis of the sources above, esp. the quote from WP:N. - ~~NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)~~ added a bit which I missed earlier. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS are indeed RS, and refs that are not RS are not RS. I have described why all four sources you brought are not RS for consideration of notability of an organization per WP:ORGCRIT - you should read that. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rzvas, I guess you can hear something salient, in Jytdog's analysis, shall you try enough.......∯WBG^converse 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the article and avoided make a vote but after having seen a number of established editors able to find reliable sources for the establishing WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GNG, I have no doubt now that the article should be absolutely kept. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I saw you mention over the ANI thread that you aimed for an auto-patrol flag, please be aware that we have a disdain for hat-collecting Wikipedia is not a MMORPG and that these type of creations won't lead to the flag.∯WBG^converse 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. www.theartcollector.org is a blog that offers Advertorial/promotional editorial as part of their opportunities for brand exposure, and is not remotely an independent, reliable source. milemag.com publishes press releases, Luxury London "positions premium brands in front of high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth individuals through absorbing multi-channel content, revolutionary data profiling technology and tailored invitation-only events" in other words: neither independent nor reliable. The piece in Glass Magazine barely mentions the gallery, so does not provide significant coverage. Vexations (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than just three sources. Look at the history of the article. You won't see if it is possible anytime soon for others to add the content without engaging in edit warring with the same editors who are badgering this AfD. Excelse (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excelse, I've looked at the article's history, and chose the revision which contained all the sources that were ever cited there. And analysed them in detail. So you won't find any new source there. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Except the sources provided by users above, Standard.co.uk (London Evening Standard) also provides significant coverage per WP:GNG. Excelse (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You have certainly failed to bring a new source.LES has been noted in Nitin's analysis.∯WBG^converse 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Fails NCORP. The sole claim to notability (which has got almost zero significant-traction outside the realm of crypto-blogs) is an-one-event-notability, at any case. Nitin's and Jytdog's reasoning has been excellent. And, I'm pretty amazed that multiple people seem to be blissfully unaware of ORGCRIT.∯WBG^converse 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jytdog and NitinMlk's excellent analyses of the promotional and unreliable sources in use. From what I can tell from what's left, the gallery has a claim of significance for apparently being the first art gallery to accept payments of cryptocurrency, however there do not appear to be any reliable publications noting this achievement, strongly suggesting that it is not one which would establish notability. And without notability, this business fails our inclusion guidelines. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. Before even commenting here, I had already searched about the HOFA, and was unable to find any in-depth, independent, reliable coverage that comes anywhere close to meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. But I am someone who believes in discussion. So I posted my analysis of every source of the article in the hope of getting others' views. But rather than providing any new material for discussion or any policy-based arguments, they have just provided the copies of LES source, which appeared in multiple cryptocurrency promoting blogs/websites. These blogs/sites aren't even counted for notability, per WP:ORGCRIT. In any case, they add nothing new. Every thing else has already been explained in my analysis above. And I also note the thorough policy-based analysis of Jytdog. We can waste more time here, but that won't make any difference. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500 who laid out correct understanding of the subject. Subject warrants stand alone article because of the significant coverage in multiple sources the article shows. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sdmarathe James500 did nothing of the sort? WHERE is the significant coverage in multiple sources? Theroadislong (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's just the one reliable independent source as discussed above, so the subject clearly does not meet any of the applicable notability criteria. NitinMlk's and Jytdog's analyses of the sources are exhaustive and I agree with them entirely. WP:ORGCRIT are much stricter than it used to be (thankfully) and this just doesn't come close to meeting them. --bonadea contributions talk 07:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a business article and therefore must satisfy WP:NCORP not WP:GNG, an error many keep voters are making, and the only article that comes close isn't focused on the organisation itself. Cheers to Jytdog for their hard work. SportingFlyer talk 07:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete votes are citing WP:ORGCRIT which has been already satisfied by multiple sources.[26][27] These sources have significantly discussed the subject and are independent. Kraose (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. The first is le Mile which is a press release, identical to the one also published by Luxe which had also been used as a ref. (really -- compare them. The same words.) It is not independent. The second is the evening Standard which is OK. There is one independent source that has substantial discussion of HOFA. One. Jytdog (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I am convinced by Jytdog and Nitin's analyses that the sourcing isn't sufficient. Reyk _YO! 14:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Almost no in-depth coverage exists aside for brief mentioning in some garbage blogs. Really saddens me that some people consider all those obvious WP:UGC as "reliable sources"... The "Mile Magazine" source is just a brief PR. Only usable WP:RS with passable depth is an article from "The Standard", but that's it. All in all this is just a non-notable art dealer.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a majority of !voters are tending towards delete, there is a significant minority with policy-based arguments towards keep. Re-listing this discussion to gain clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I count 11 keep votes, and the only policy based argument I see is that the subject meets WP:GNG which has been shown to be an erroneous reading of the sources. None of the sources (except one) do in fact satisfy the GNG. Vexations (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, there are 7 of them in total. Anyway, once the actual analysis of the sources started, there are 14 delete !votes. And as far as sources are concerned, everything was already discussed in detail before the relisting. In fact, all the keep !votes were already refuted by the policy-based arguments before the AfD was relisted. If somehow there was an iota of doubt left, then it was cleared by the subsequent delete !votes. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No real sources -- I mean, the Evening Standard story is not really about the gallery, it's about their accepting-bitcoin publicity stunt, and would be no more than a reliable source for THAT topic, not a mark of notability. And the less said about User:James500's frankly ridiculous "it's a building not a business" claim, the better, especially since it's not even a building by his logic, it's a tenant occupying PART of a building. --Calton | Talk 14:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jytdog and NitinMlk's analyses of the sources, and also per Bonadea above. Vanamonde (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject does not meet GNG, and the analysis by Jytdog and NitinMlk above of the sources is thorough and convincing. -- Begoon 02:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All of the above discussion is incapable of reaching a cogent decision on the evaluation of the contemporary art gallery under consideration. We might as well just leave it as "Keep" for the time being. I am not taking any position on whether it should be "kept" or not. My concern is with these unhinged discussions. And we might as well not destroy something because it could be a long time until someone recreates it—if it is notable. We are essentially reinventing the wheel in each of these deletion discussions pertaining to contemporary art galleries and we are doing an extremely poor job of reinventing that wheel. I would suggest that notability guidelines for contemporary art galleries are distant cousins of other notability guidelines. I think we should draw up notability guidelines particularly tailored to contemporary art galleries and then revisit this AfD. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you've actually read the entire discussion above, then you would know that a consensus to delete has already been reached. And we aren't "reinventing the wheel"; rather, we are just following the standard notability policies & guidelines. I respect your interest in this area, but this isn't the place to 'tailor' notability guidelines. BTW, if you somehow end up tailoring the notability guidelines, then you can request for refund of the above article. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that we are "just following the standard notability policies & guidelines" which are exceptionally poorly suited to evaluating the notability of contemporary art galleries. But carry on. Don't let me stop us from deleting articles on contemporary art galleries willy-nilly. Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but you should raise these concerns at the talk page of WP:NCORP or any other relevant notability page. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of clueful votes is not ambiguous. The relevant guideline is WP:CORP and the keep votes have ignored WP:ORGCRIT, which we updated in March after a big whomping RfC. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "willy-nilly" was a bit harsh because I think you are trying in good faith to apply the existing policies to which you refer. Unfortunately contemporary art galleries—not necessarily this one—derive notability in part from the attention their exhibitions receive in reliably-sourced art reviews. While this at present is rejected as a manifestation of WP:INHERIT it should be one of the factors that contribute to notability for contemporary art galleries. We are in fact very concerned with reviews of exhibitions when we evaluate notability. Reviews focus 99% of the time on the artwork and the artist and not on the art gallery. But those reviews have the potential to support notability for the art gallery. Aside from reviews of art exhibitions there is relatively little that can be said about art galleries. Consequently in many cases—not necessarily this one—articles on art galleries are deleted when they easily meet notability requirements. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you added two sources in these diffs -- one was a Reuters video piece, and the other was a reproduction of the same Reuters video at WaPo website. This is one source, not two, and this is very typical reference padding. As you note, the video is about the artist and gives a passing mention to the gallery. Although you might wish it so, the one source does nothing to help add to the notability of the gallery. If you want to create some cutout in NCORP please feel free but that is very unlikely to gain consensus. (There are art dealers who do meet the NCORP criteria; this one is not.) Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this Reuters video (& its reupload) has already been discussed by me as Ref 14 in my above analysis of the sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We're not going to throw away the opinions of two dozen AfD participants who have reached consensus on a discussion just because you want a new guideline. The fact that such an unequivocal consensus has arisen based on existing guidelines proves that a new one is not needed. Reyk _YO! 15:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale laid out by Jytdog. Strikerforce^Talk 15:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
note, ref added by User:Timtempleton here is a blog by a Forbes contributor and just another crypto-hype ref, like the three cryptoblogs we already have removed. Doesn't contribute to N per WP:ORGCRIT. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Forbes sources was also discussed by me as Ref 1 in my above analysis. In fact, you've also discussed this particular source here earlier. I don't know why the users are adding the same sources which have already been discussed multiple times in this AfD. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anything that says articles under discussion for deletion can't be improved with relevant info from sourcing. The Forbes writer is an experienced fintech writer with BBC experience - seems pretty legit to me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess there is no problem with adding cryptocurrency details, as you did with this edit. But that source doesn't count towards notability, per WP:ORGCRIT. Please also read the above discussion for more relevant details. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:timtempleton, Forbes contributor blogs are treated different from content by Forbes staff. They are specifically mentioned in WP:ORGCRIT, and have been discussed at RSN here and here. Perhaps OK for sourcing content as an RSOPINION, but not relevant to N. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the fact that the gallery takes cryptocurrency is somewhat unique, but not earthshattering. The source I added points this out. I'm basing my weak keep vote on the notable artists who exhibited at the gallery, and their pending expansion into the US, making it their third location. It might be a bit WP:TOOSOON to get significant US coverage, but I'll keep an eye out with a Google alert. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- see above about the ref you added. Your argument is basically WP:INHERITED which is a classic invalid !keep argument. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I considered that, and in most cases you're right, but I'm willing to look at a gallery or concert hall as being notable for the performances and exhibitions inside, despite the WP:INHERITED argument. That's why I went with weak rather than full on. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, you don't have wp:inherited here. And another correction is in order—the notability of artists who exhibited at the gallery is irrelevant. In fact entirely unknown and un-notable artists would confer more notability on the gallery than prominent and decidedly notable artists—if there are published in reliable sources, reviews of art exhibitions of that artist's work, mounted in the gallery's space or under the auspices of the gallery but in other spaces. We are seeking an evaluation of notability for a gallery of contemporary art. Therefore we want to be mindful of what an art gallery specializing in contemporary art does—it discovers artists. This varies by degree but that element of discovery is what a contemporary art gallery does. A review of an art exhibition, especially of a relatively unknown artist, with little track record of success, has the potential to confer notability on the art gallery, to some degree. This WP:INHERIT charge grows out of a misunderstanding of what a gallery does. We see this time and time again (De Clercq, Maddox) in gallery after gallery with deletion being the result in cases of entirely notable art galleries of contemporary art. The inane argument is that "the notability of the shoes on sale in a shoe store do not confer notability on the shoe store." This is ass-backwards. Shoe stores don't discover shoes. Nike, Puma, or Brooks might discover shoes, but the shoe store in no sense discovers the shoes. More importantly no one ever argued that the notability of an artist, in the instance that the artist is notable, confers notability on the art gallery. So that would be a straw man argument. All that is called for is common sense and a little bit of familiarity with the sort of entity at the heart of an article for deletion, in this case a gallery of contemporary art. Countless artists want to be represented by an art gallery. An art gallery risks its money on the bet that they can spot the next artist whose work can be worth very high prices. This is the case whether the artist is entirely unknown or of only moderate success. Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2018 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sensor Tower

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

No evidence of notability. All the last long tranche of refs are mentions by various organisations "we use their data" "this was downloaded from us.." type statements . The earlier refs all appear to be press releases or re-hashed press releases. I can't see anything both independent and reliable here. Was originally a rejected draft so the author simply moved it to main-space without review once the ten edit barrier was reached. Would have been much better to have stayed at Draft and improved it. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 11:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yup, a whole lotta mentions and press releases don't make WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to me like native advertising. There now is a "media mentions" section, but it is only a list of outlets that once reported one way or another, and appears to be a carbon copy of the "SENSOR TOWER DATA IS REGULARLY CITED BY" on the company's website. Lordtobi (✉) 19:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I created a neutral page for Sensor Tower on Wikipedia because we're known as a research firm that is cited by many sources on Wikipedia and in the media. Some are from press releases, but many are not and that is because we're used as a source of app intelligence and information. We've been in business since 2013 and my inclusion of the media sources were used to show that we're frequently cited as a data source. If it's better to remove these, then I'm happy to do that. I'm aware that as an employee of the company, I have a COI, which I've noted in my talk section. I'll review the rest of the guidelines again to make sure that my relationship to the company is transparent. I'm not looking to pitch our company here on Wikipedia, but since it is a source of information, I wanted to give Sensor Tower a profile where users and those interested can review basic information on who we are, when we were founded, our founders, some history on how were we started, funding, and the names of our products - in a neutral way. This company information may be used to understand if we're a trusted source of information. Happy to edit or change anything that sounds otherwise. In the meantime, I'll continue to look for more information and sources to add to the profile that adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines.

I also researched some other articles that have cited Sensor Tower as a source on wikipedia and in the body of the text. Below are a sample of other companies or wikipedia users/editors who have cited Sensor Tower in their own articles. Sensor Tower is a source of information, like any market research firm, so it would be useful for other users to get background on who the company is, making it a notable source.

Wikipedia articles who mention Sensor Tower in the body of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortnite_Battle_Royale, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_in_video_gaming, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Run

You really need third-party coverage to establish notability in the eyes of Wikipedia for purposes of having a stand-alone article. Just adding self-citing press releases and passing mentions in other articles doesn't really count. Nobody here is arguing against its inclusion in articles, so this argument is off-topic. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter @Lordtobi @Velella @—AE (talk @CAPTAIN RAJU @Dissident93: Posting a reply here in case it's easier to reference. I'm looking into the best way to communicate to editors on Wikipedia - talk page or on the page in question, thanks! ----Hi Dissident93, Thank you for your comment on the Sensor Tower page. The company has a lot of media sources that mention and cite us. We have a few 3rd party articles, but rather than news outlets writing about us, they usually use our platform as a source of data, we may not have the amount traditional 3rd party sources you're referring to. One of our competitors, App Annie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Annie), has a wikipedia page, as well as Similar Web (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimilarWeb). I'm trying to understand how our page is different from theirs and why ours is marked for deletion. Can you give us feedback on that? I've focused on keep our page neutral because it would be valuable for users to see who we are when cited as a marketing intelligence platform. I appreciate your help. JuliaC298 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Additional: We're looking at similar companies on Wikipedia, the standards set by the Wikipedia company, and doing our due diligence to ensure that the Sensor Tower page is represented in a neutral way. We are also looking to understand and to be treated fairly according to other similar companies whose Wikipedia company articles, like App Annie and SimilarWeb, which have been up longer than ours and not flagged for deletion. Previous editors mentioned there should be more content on our page when it was first set live, which I've added, with more context, and relevancy. We're not looking to be a storefront, only a place where a Wikipedia user who sees Sensor Tower referenced as a research firm, can look us up and understand who we are and the data provided for app data.JuliaC298 (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on my talk page, I think those two pages you brought up could (maybe should) go to AfD as well, as I don't really see them having any real notability. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:21, 15 September 2018 (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. Withdrawn by nominator. So Why 08:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unavowed

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

No references. Does not satisfy game notability as written. Google search finds many hits to the effect that the game exists and advertises itself, but no third-party discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of correcting this article and not put it on WP:QD but Google search did not provide enough and convincing search reasons to improve it. Also the creator did not provide any sources to support content claims. Therefore, Delete. SkillsM674 (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This should either have been moved to draft space or speedy deleted. I've found about 5 articles and/or reviews that could be used to expand the article, but it's clearly not fit for the encyclopedia in the state it's currently in. Nanophosis (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has 24 reviews on Metacritic; an abundance of RSes are therefore available. Phediuk (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phediuk. Sources exist, they just have to be added. Considering that Metacritic is the fifth Google hit and the third hit is this Rock, Paper, Shotgun review, I think this nomination is a spectacular WP:BEFORE failure. Regards So Why 09:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple of clearly reliable sources to the talk page for further use per WP:POTENTIAL. They should be enough to expand the article. I'll see if I can do so myself later but you are all invited to do so as well. Regards So Why 10:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I fixed the article up with sources (will probably nominate it for WP:GA once I fixed the rest). @Robert McClenon: Can you please withdraw this? Regards So Why 12:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Withdrawn because the defect has been cured by providing proper references. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2018 (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. With no prejudice to recreation if real stats for this are found. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of OECD countries by job security

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

A user, @Godotskimp, has expressed concern that this is a hoax. The source removed by the first prodder in April does not include such a statistic. The same user prodded it again in September, so I have procedurally brought it to AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why didn't you just go for CSD? It seems to be a case of WP:G3's hoax clause. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced stats. Ajf773 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article heavily contains original research, with no inline citations or references. KCVelaga (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial list. RaviC (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a good chance many to all of the stats here are made up on the spot. Anonymuss User (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR? —AE (talk • contributions) 11:24, 12 September 2018 (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 per discussion below Nick (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Emslie

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

Non-notable animator. I can't find any sources that discuss him or his works in depth and the worldcat results are largely unrelated. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrator, not animator from the looks of things, but agree delete for non-notability Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It does not appear that there is enough comprehensive discussion on them in reliable sources to support an article, or an argument for notability either under WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Waggie (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find any additional sources. The search results page of Worldcat is certainly not enough to justify an article. Fails WP:BIO. Brad v 00:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not know how the nominator looked for sources, but the first hit in Google News is an extensive article about him in the Los Angeles Times.[28] I added it to the article. It's . Reading it, I think it alone is enough. Chrissymad, please take a look at it. And the Worlcat links are not unrelated--they're books of which heis the illustrator. There are reviews of a number of them also, and they all mention him. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm completely misreading that source, but that looks like an article about Dave Smith in which it mentions an illustration of him "...with Donald Duck that was made by artist Peter Emslie". I see no other reference to Emslie in that article. DGG, could you please check that article again and confirm my reading of it? Thank you. Waggie (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental: I checked the first 30 results on WorldCat very carefully looking for reviews or journalistic coverage of Peter Emslie and his works. The only thing that I see is the abstracts submitted by the publishers and a few brief user-contributed reviews from Goodreads.

I also note that a number of results are writings by different people. eg: this book where two of the authors are Peter Roach and John Emslie, and this where a completely different Peter Emslie writing about a land survey in the 1800s, and this, written by Sarah Emslie, published by Ryland Peters & Small. Waggie (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the source. You are completely correct. I seem to have seen what i hoped to see. Agreed that the reviews are unsubstantial. I've changed to Delete. DGG ( talk ) 11:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG For what it's worth when I first found that source (which I did well before I nominated) I thought it was going to be a great piece about him, as it turns out, not so much...I did a lot of digging in papers too and found nothing worthwhile. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nothing substantial found . DGG ( talk ) 11:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find substantial coverage either. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any secondary sources. The article has been here for 14 years and just recently got it's first attempt at a source, and that's not really even a source, just a search result.Jacona (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE, passing mentions in a few sources (including Mouse Planet) further cements this as a delete for me. JC7V-constructive zone 03:56, 7 September 2018 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sedrakyan's triangle

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

In the words of the article creator, HaykHS "It is a new result (2018), that's why secondary sources are not available at this point of time." Without secondary sources, it does not pass WP:GNG. Note also the similarity of the article creator with the name of the author of the primary reference, and the fact that the same editor has mainly contributed to this and the two other articles Nairi Sedrakyan and Sedrakyan's inequality. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR, specifically WP:PRIMARY. This could be a self-made mathematical construct, as it appears at least one major contributor is close to the subject. It also fails WP:GNG and likely any other notability policy that could apply here. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David, yes you are right. I have contributed only to these 3 articles, I would like to contribute to some other articles also, but even these 3 articles took a lot of time. These were my father's life-long results achieved during more than 20 years starting from 1997. Is it bad that I shared it from my own account? I do not see what is the point stating that the editor (me) is related to the article if I have provided all reliable sources and wrote it from the independent point of view. Could you please delete those two comments from the other two articles? If you want to check the validity of the statements, you have all the sources please go ahead and check them, but it makes no sense to write that as the editor is related to the subject than maybe it is not trustworthy information. The last result (triangle) was obtained 2 months ago. I simply shared it because it is extremely useful new method. It makes no sense to call it a self-made result, because it was published in Springer, which means it was approved by professionals as a scientific work. It also makes no sense to explain why is it important (secondary souces can be added later on, no need to delete the article). Please try to understand the content, I am sure you will see my point. Thank you very much for your time and comments. HaykHS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.254.249 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Wikipedia:Notability you will see the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. It is a higher bar than many would like but is set high to keep the encyclopedia to a manageable size. Even in mathematics there is in the order of 100,000 papers published each year, it would be impossible to have articles on all of these. Hence a more stringent criteria is needed. So we require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Papers by the author don't count as they are not independent. For academics this will mean lots of other people will have cited the work. It is impossible to gauge whether there will be significant coverage in third party sources when a paper has not yet appeared in print. Maybe in a few years time this paper will attract this coverage but it is too soon now. Documenting you fathers achievements is a worthy thing to do, but wikipedia is not the place. I personally have a page on my website listing all my fathers research work. There I can keep it without worrying about other people editing or deleting the page. --Salix alba (talk): 07:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon to gauge notability. --Salix alba (talk): 07:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Needs traction in the field and the literature first. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:40, 11 September 2018 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Weng

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

Seems to fail WP:NATHLETE due to no credible claims of significance. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Weng has played in the Nigerian Professional Football League, which according to WP:FPL is a fully professional league and thus according to WP:NFOOTY is notable enough for an article. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY as has played in a fully pro league, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFOOTBALL due to participation here in the pro league of the country. [29]--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:57, 12 September 2018 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CS Games

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

Declined PROD. This is not notable; it fails WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT, etc. as there is very little coverage in reliable sources of this competition. wumbolo ^^^ 17:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no notable Ghits, seems to be a non-notable computer science competition. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirbanzo: This is not a Counter-Strike event; you have to better adjust your search parameters (searching for "CS Games" is not good enough). Try this search for example. wumbolo ^^^ 17:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that, point still stands as still no non-notable sources. The blunder has little impact on my vote as such. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some adjustments to google search still don't turn up enough to constitute WP:SUSTAINED coverage. [30] Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability issues. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find a single article about this thing. Blatantly promotional. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:10, 5 September 2018 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Tablak

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

Non-notable actress who's biggest claim to fame was a minor 4 episode role in Married With Children. Can't find anything significant or in depth. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that will convince us that the subject has passed WP:NACTOR. GenuineArt (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:05, 9 September 2018 (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. Whether this should be a list or not is left to discretion of editors. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Competitions and prizes in artificial intelligence

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

Basically a WP:CATALOG without any sourced entries, and the whole article isn't based on a notable topic. PROD was declined "given government involvement", but the article is still promotional. wumbolo ^^^ 16:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CATALOG is irrelevant as this is not a sales catalog. The topic passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN – see Artificial Intelligence And Information-control Systems Of Robots or The Nexus between Artificial Intelligence and Economics, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article of course has some useful encylopedic content. As per Andrew, it passes GNG and LISTN. KCVelaga (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has fair spread on encyclopedic knowledge, its informative and well sourced. Keep. scope_creep (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but - Change it into a list. The subject itself is not a topic of notability. Hence, this article may fall in WP:SYNTH. If any organization publishes a list then that list might become notable if it meets Notability guidelines. Please refer H:LIST for further guidance.--Wikishagnik (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is well written as it is. It a presents a series of competitions and prizes and it is closed, meaning no extraneous spam or promotional junk. Why change it into a list. I wont add anything to improve structural layout and will lose information scope_creep (talk)
Keep: meets WP:GNG / WP:LISTN. I'm neutral on the move. Fine as is, it seems. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and also I agree that WP:LISTN is satisfied. the List is encyclopaedic and notable. [31][32]. If there are concerns on promo content, then a clean up tag is the answer, not the AfD tag. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:55, 12 September 2018 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agami Hando

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY as has never played in a fully-professional league. Prod removed by article creator (who seems to be creating articles on non-notable footballers for promotional purposes) without a rationale. Number 5 7 15:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 15:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. FkpCascais (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFOOTY. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the creator's articles was deleted as a blatant hoax and a second appears to probably be as well. Are we sure this guy even exists? Smartyllama (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was covered in Bosnian press here so I'm assuming he's probably real. [33] SportingFlyer talk 00:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be a footballer tying to make a living, and thought of using Wikipedia to promote himself to get more chances to get some contact in some better club. FkpCascais (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2018 (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. There's substantial disagreement here over the quality of the sources, and where they fall on the incidental-to-substantial spectrum. There's good arguments on both sides, so going largely with the weight of numbers on this one. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third Rock Ventures

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

Delete Investment firm, no indications of notability, references don't appear to exist that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Nature reference fails ORGIND as it relies exclusively on interview/statements from founders and contains no original research/opinion. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a Yellow Pages alternative. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I made this page, and think the company probably meets WP:GNG. That said, there are only a limited number of high-quality sources covering these folks though, so I'm ready to admit that this falls into a notability "grey zone" and I thank the nom for questioning the notability. I've beefed up the references a little bit. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article, especially the Fortune, Boston Globe and Nature articles, are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and thus WP:CORP. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP-like, resulting in promotional article such as:

"Rather than passively waiting for investment opportunities, Third Rock creates companies itself by attracting the world’s leading experts to sign on"! Etc.

Just a directory listing on a venture fund going about its business. Nothing stands out about it, so "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage in the reliable sources is indcidental , not substantial. The Nature article mentions it in a general article about the overall field; the Globe includes it in a long list of similar firms. None of theis is substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: This is simply wrong. The Nature article is primarily about Third Rock Ventures, not the broader field, and the Globe article contains no such "list of similar firms". You may have a different understanding of what constitutes "incidental" and "substantial" coverage, but your second sentence misrepresents the sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG and Arms & Hearts: - Concur with Hearts. The Fortune and Forbes articles are entirely about Third Rock. I'm not saying those are the best sources, but the coverage definitely isn't incidental. NickCT (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wrong about Nature--but upon reading it again it appears to be PR--even though it appears in a source where would would not expect to find it. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: - What makes it PR? NickCT (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, It is dedicated to presenting the material as the company would wish it presented.

But I gather most people here see this differently; I would withdraw this afd as hopeless, but I cannot, because there's another delete opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: - Well, I wouldn't disagree with you that the coverage in the article seems positive (perhaps in a way that PR might be positive). But I'm not sure it necessarily follows that it's a PR piece. The author and source don't seem to be connected to the company and I'd think we usually consider Nature to be pretty high quality RS.... Anyways, as always, appreciate hearing your thoughts. NickCT (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the increasing use of promotional interviews as journalism has left be in doubt about the actual reliability of even the best sources. Nature is still reliable for science, but it may not be so for profiles and miscellaneous editorial matter--which are not peer-reviewed and never have been. I've found similar promotional material on people and companies in the NYT, and Washington Post, but in the feature sections, not the actual news. I said many years ago in a RSN discussion that "no source is reliable for every purpose," but I did not realize how bad it was going to get. I still hope that WP at least through its crowd-souring method of review --rather than editorial discretion-- can at least keep itself free from such material, but to do that, we will need to revise our standards to look at the actual material, rather than just where it comes from. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: - Appreciate what you're getting at and absolutely agree that we should avoid sources whose intent is promotion.

Also agree that Nature may not be reliable for editorial matter. That said, it also may be reliable, right? It's possible Nature's "News" section has the same editorial standards the NYT does. Given that we know Nature is reliable in other places, shouldn't we grant them the benefit of the doubt?

I don't want to belabor the point, but just because an article presents a positive image of a place and is mostly interview based, doesn't automatically mean it's unreliable.

We're getting a little hung up on the Nature piece.... There's also the Globe, Fortune and Forbes.... NickCT (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Globe nor the Fortune references are Intellectually Independent. As per ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Those articles rely on interviews with the founders and there is nothing in any of those articles that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The Forbes reference fails since the author, Luke Timmerman, is a "contributor" and not a Forbes journalist and is not subject to editorial controls. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: - You seem to be looking at articles which have quotes from folks at Third Rock, then you assume that all the facts in those articles are based on quotes from the folks at Third Rock, and thus the articles aren't "unaffiliated from the subject". I'm a little confused how you're making this logical leap. Just because a news piece quotes someone, doesn't mean that the entire piece is somehow tainted. NickCT (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: Having read the articles, I cannot identify or point to any original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The Globe article refers to a company announcement and uses statements like "The firm said" along with a posed photo of the cofounders. The fortune article is even worse and meets all the criteria of an infomercial (posed photo, history of company, motivation of founders, problem encountered, problems overcome, success!) and uses unashamedly promotional language throughout. I don't think anyone would seriously believe these are both intellectually independent pieces? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.... So looking at the following Fortune excerpt;

When Foundation finally launched in 2010, Third Rock backed it with $25 million. Google Ventures and Kleiner Perkins later kicked in too. The total, $40 million, far exceeded the typical $5 million to $8 million Series A biotech round.

Your feeling is the source did nothing to independently investigate/analyze it? They just took that factoid for straight from the mouths of the Third Rock folks? What's your basis for saying that? Do you think that that's how journalism works in general? NickCT (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: Sure, if you want to remove everything from the article that isn't clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, I'm sure a couple of sentences might be left. But not a lot and not enough and mostly comments about topics other than about Third Rock and since the vast majority of this article is clearly attributable to sources affiliated with the subject, my opinion is that is fails to be intellectually independent. Also, that sentence you've chosen is more of a comment on Foundation than on Third Rock. And sadly, yeah, that's the way a lot of business journalism appears to work in general these days - most journalists are afraid of voicing their own opinions and simply build "stories" around interviews and quotations which end up parroting the company lines. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So is it fair to say when you said "I cannot identify or point to any original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc" you meant, "can only identify very little"? Not trying to be a stickler here, and again, I do appreciate some of your points about the "quality" of business journalism, but find consensus is not helped by exaggeration. NickCT (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you'd miss the implied context nor did I think it needed to be explained that I couldn't identify any opinion/analysis/etc germane to the company for the purposes of helping establish the notability of the company. Hope that makes it clearer. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fair enough. So how about;

Third Rock won’t disclose its returns. But according to the website of one of its investors, Calpers, its 2007 fund has generated an internal rate of return of 25.7%. That puts it well into the top performance quartile, according to alternative-investment tracker Preqin.

That looks like the source did independent verification. Looks like the factoid speaks to the notability of the company. NickCT (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no point in trying for precision. Any source at all can be objected to, and that's one of the weakness of our use of GNG as the sole or principal criterion. For most sources, I could argue in either direction. Frankly, I think almost everyone makes consciously or unconsciously a global judgement of notability , based on some combination of what the think the encyclopedia should cover and what they think of the particular subject of the article, and then argues to come to whatever conclusion they think should be best. To take an example other than this, I think we should be very expansive for political parties and religious sects, and I argue accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm ... I just look at the sources. That said, I have on occasion come across an organization that may be very specialist, with mentions in specialist publications that when added up and taken together, leave me inclined to !vote Keep even though an argument exists to disqualify each individual source. Doesn't happen often I'll admit. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is right. Everyone does make some personal judgement about notability. The only question is whether you're able to admit this to yourself.

I'm pretty happy to admit that my judgement on this could easily be biased by the fact that I'm involved in the biotech sector. Obviously a biotech VC firm is going to seem more notable to me than it might to other people.

That said, we should just be focusing on the sources. I'm a little surprised, b/c at this point the article has 6+ mainstream, high quality RS that provide direct coverage. You've got to grant that there have been a lot of AfD discussions where articles survived with a lot less.

I could probably find another dozen sources that provide mentions (e.g. of the kind that say "Third Rockventures funded Company X"), but somehow I don't think that's going help with some of the intransigence here. NickCT (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, because those types of references would fail WP:CORPDEPTH. There's definitely some intransigence here by people who want to ignore policy/guidelines and instead just "have an opinion". HighKing⁺⁺ 14:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defence. Convincing.

Listen, as DGG said, if you're going to be really critical, I'll grant you that you could probably discount all these references. That said, the article now has considerably more references (from what are usually considered high-quality sources) than most articles which have survived AfD. You're holding this subject to a different bar. And yes, I get your point about the quality of business journalism and churnalism, so maybe a higher bar is appropriate. But not that high.... NickCT (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not holding it to a different bar. Check my !voting on other AfDs and you'll see I'm applying the same bar everywhere, which are the standards of notability written in the NCORP guidelines. All it takes is for two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and I'll happily change my !vote. Yourself and DGG are essentially admitting that you're not holding these references to the standards written in NCORP and are !voting to Keep regardless. Fair enough, that's your perogative, but DGG has argued in the past that he doesn't agree with (the application of?) some of the guidelines and you've admitted that applying the guidelines could probably result in the same analysis as mine. Happily, a closer will look at the application of guidelines and the arguments put forward, etc, but from my experience, in practice, the closer will apply whatever the consensus is regardless. Not quite a counting of !votes but close enough as dammit. This is likely to close as a "No Consensus" unless others join in and I'll accept whatever the result is. We're all simply trying to make the encyclopedia better. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm "not holding these references to the standards written in NCORP". I think I simply have a different interpretation of the standards written in NCORP. You've got to admit that if we apply "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" overly strictly, we could probably discount virtually any source... You've also got to admit that we're examining references which would generally be considered acceptable outside the realm of NCORP.

Anyways, as indicated by my initial "weak" vote, I realize there's reasonable scope for disagreement here... NickCT (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. If we apply "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" *correctly* and in the spirit of how to apply the guidelines, then we end up discounting most sources. Not because they're not reliable, but because 99% of business journalism is spam and crap, promotion and churnalism. I'm laughing because as we're having this debate, Ceyockey below added a fantastic book reference which, in my opinion, is intellectually independent and meets the criteria. So that's one good reference. One more and I'll change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well now you've got me really confused. The book reference seems like a "simple listing" to me. If anything, I'd call that reference less good than the news articles, b/c it appears to be more of a "trivial mention" than indepth coverage. Regardless, if it makes you happy..... it can't be that bad... NickCT (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is intellectually independent and discusses their business model is some depth. Ticks the box for me. A "simple listing" is when someone produces a "top 10" list or produces a "directory of VC companies". HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fair enough. It's a little more than a simple listing. But it's also only single paragraph..... NickCT (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changed to Keep on the basis of the present version. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given DGG's change of !vote, consensus is still not evident on whether to keep or delete this article; giving this last re-list a try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: meh, it's still a "delete" for me. The article is much reduced in length, but still features the claim that I complained about in my iVote:

Rather than passively waiting for investment opportunities, Third Rock claims to take a more active role in creating companies by bringing together experts in a field.[6]

Who cares what the company claims about itself? It's now a routine, directory listing; no value to the project. I don't see WP:CORPDEPTH being met here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: - With all due respect, it sounds like you're taking issue with a single sentence. Your criticism of that sentence may be fair, but it's hardly a rationale for deleting the entire article. NickCT (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently notable, I believe—There is material beyond that which has been added from news sources. Case in point, I've added a 'business model' section which much of the content is sourced from a 2015 book edited by Satish Nambisan. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, good work. The book reference is also good and meets the criteria for establishing notability. The guidelines state that we need a minimum two good references. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well thought out arguments in this discussion for keep-- I agree that the bar needs to be high... "but not too high". Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Soulman1125: - Kudos on reading that wall-of-text. Impressive. NickCT (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @NickCT: I live for the drama-- what can I say?! Ha. Cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2018 (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. While the discussion is tending towards delete, consensus is not evident, given the renewed call for merging the contents. I would suggest here that discussions may be held by concerned editors on the relevant talk page with respect to whether this article should be merged or not. In case there is no consensus there too for merging, or in case some alternative consensus develops otherwise, there is no prejudice against an early re-nomination. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 23:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rhea

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

Non-notable local stage performer / director. Not convinced the subject meets ANYBIO. Sources provided within the article, as of this nomination, only state that the subject is a key figure of a certain theater, but do not offer significant coverage. Strikerforce^Talk 16:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the author of this bio page. Mark Rhea is a notable figure in the Washington, DC, theater community, which is the 2nd largest theater community in the United States. He founded and runs a professional theater company that has received 50 nominations for the Helen Hayes Award, which is the region's highest theater honor. He himself has been nominated and has won the award. I'm continuing to build out/edit this page as I discover more sources. (unsigned comment made by User:Rider4151 E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The multiple nominations for the Helen Hayes Awards should establish notability.[34] But, why only one nomination listed here: Helen Hayes Awards Resident Production That doesn't include the 2018 nomination, so perhaps it's the Wikipedia Page that is incomplete. Ross-c (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are the Helen Hayes Awards themselves notable enough to establish notability for Mr. Rhea, however? Going a step farther, is the fact that he was nominated (but apparently has not won) enough to establish independent notability beyond BLP1E, or perhaps more concisely, one event multiple times? Strikerforce^Talk 14:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Strikerforce:The Helen Hayes Awards have their own Wikipedia page, and looking through press it does seem to be notable, but the awards are Washington specific. Washington however is a major world city and important in the theatre world. So, I'm for now leaning towards considering them. Multiple nominations for a significant award is generally considered to be enough for notability as per WP:ANYBIO. That's the best I can do. If you or anyone would like to argue further that the Helen Hayes Awards should not be considered significant then I'll read it and follow up your references. However, just asking the question isn't enough by itself to change my opinion/vote. I, personally, would need more. Ross-c (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: Oh, I wasn't trying to change your opinion. I was simply asking the question because I truly wasn't sure, myself. I would think that a localized award - "major world city" or otherwise - would still come up short for establishing notability for a single individual, but that's just my two cents on it. I wanted to ask the question in hopes of not only getting deeper into your thoughts on the matter, but to also hopefully spur on the thoughts of others that may choose to contribute to this discussion. Strikerforce^Talk 15:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Strikerforce: You are welcome to try and change my opinion. This is one such case where such is definitely possible. One thing you might want to do is search through previous AfDs which mention the Helen Hayes Awards and see how seriously people have taken them in the past. Ross-c (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We could really do with somebody else coming to this debate and stating their views.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion, doesn't really fulfill any of WP:ENT. The sources are also very lackluster and don't represent significant coverage. I looked around and couldn't really find any coverage from mainstream sources. In the end, just not very notable. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE (along with some content) to Keegan Theatre, which he founded. Noting that the coverage is sparse and local, and that the Helen Hayes Awards is local to D.C., and that the Keegan is not one of D.C. larger local theater companies (some D.C. companies regularly stage premiers of new plays that go on to be staged in other cites; some launch actors careers; Ari Roth, became notable running D.C.'s Theater J. I have just searched, and I can't find mentions of Rhea outside the D.C. media. In particular, directors of some D.C. theaters stage productions for which their directors get written up they the Times and other NYC media papers that follow theater. I am just not seeing notability here. I am arguing MERGE on teh strength of ongoing, INDEPTH coverage over many years in the DC media of Rhea in the context of the Keegan. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 15:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c:. I'm a long-time D.C. theatre-goer and I'm struggling to see what you're seeing here. The Hayes is, after all, a D.C. award. What I'd like to see is a profile of Rhea - not of the Keegan, and some coverage that is not local. That's a standard, by the way, that get applied at AfD to people in other cities, including NYC. The sole mention of Rhea I find outside the Beltway is from the far norther fringe of metro DC's reach, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, where he directed a summer play in 2013. That's all I can find. Can't find a profile of Keegan, although articles about the theatre mention/quote Rhea, WaPo: Small space, big dreams for Keegan Theatre, Pressley, Nelson. The Washington Post; Washington, D.C. [Washington, D.C]30 June 2013: E.5., What are you seeing that I'm not? I can see merging him to a paragraph on the Keegan page. Could you see that? E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG. Redditaddict6 9 19:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think MERGE is a better option. New archive searches bring up a good deal of coverage of Rhea in the D.C. media, going back decades. He founded and has run Keegan Theatre for decades. During that period D.C. became a major live theater town. And as per WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2018 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols

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

This content originally appeared in Ozark (TV series) before being moved to a separate article. I believe the content, by itself, as in its own article, does not meet notability guidelines and is purely trivial. The article contains two references, one of which appears to be a blog; and the article essentially regurgitates what is in the second source. I tried proposing a merge of the content, but that seems to have gotten no traction. I also left a message at WP:TV but that also got no responses. So I'm trying AFD. This content has been added in the past, and has been deleted several times – [35][36][37]. I don't believe an extensive table of content explaining symbols in a television series and their meaning is notable. My suggestion was to expand the section about the symbols in the parent article, and giving more examples of certain symbols, but not list every single one and their supposed meaning. The article is also improperly named, though I have no idea what a proper name would be; and incorrectly copy-and-pasted the navbox and categories from the parent article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial content that belongs on TV Tropes. Fails WP:GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even TVTropes would remove this; this is like the horror that was an article for Disney Junior logo variations, which puts it well within the embarrassing category of FANCRUFT. Only the Ozark Wikia should care about this in anyway. Nate • (chatter) 18:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2018 (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 Bad Romance (TV series). (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yihwa (character)

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

No real-world notability whatsoever. None of the citations are to reliable sources, and none of them specifically cover the character in-depth anyway. Subject fails the WP:GNG. Entire article violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Previously redirected to Bad Romance (TV series), but twice reverted by article creator. Paul_012 (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bad Romance (TV series) - redirecting still seems to be the valid option here. If they undo the creation of the redirect, just revert back, and report to an appropriate noticeboard if that becomes necessary. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT does say that AfD is one of those appropriate venues to discuss such disputed cases. At least this should establish stronger consensus. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for reasons stated above. _signed,Rosguill^talk 22:30, 12 September 2018 (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. Sufficient reference found, consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tee-Comm Electronics

(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. I can't find anything other than passing mentions or business as usual primary documents/press releases. Through perhaps this could help ([38]), if anyone could get full version and check whether there's substantial third-party coverage? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't think of any reasonable policy based argument to keep this. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 22:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Urlocker, Michael (1995-03-15). "Satellite success eludes Tee-Comm". Financial Post.
  The article notes:
  
  Tee-Comm's track record for failing to meet optimistic financial projections seems to have scared several analysts away from the company.
  ...
  Current subscriber levels are a fair accomplishment, but far lower than the 130,000 subscribers the company had predicted, says a Bay Street analyst.
  But with Tee-Comm trading at ranges of between 95 and 120 times estimated 1994 earnings, clearly a lot of investors are behaving as if the company's success has already been achieved.
  Earnings forecasts for 1995 range between no-growth at 8 cents, which Grossner predicts, and a sharp rise to 23 cents a share, forecast by Alvin Mirman of Gruntal & Co. Inc., a small Wall Street brokerage.
  ...
  Of course, predicting the future is a tough game. But one should always keep an eye on current performance. Says one Bay Street analyst: "Sooner or later somebody is going to say, 'At $9, they have to earn 50 cents a share'."
2. Anderson, Mark (1994-09-02). "CRTC gives Tee-Comm shares a beam of hope". Financial Post.
  The article notes:
  
  Executives at Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. have been grinning like Cheshire cats since federal regulators ruled Tuesday to exempt direct-to-home (DTH) satelite television from detailed regulation - provided it is delivered via Canadian satelites.
  ...
  The ruling effectively shuts U.S. DTH leader Hughes DirecTv Inc. out of the Canadian market: Hughes uses U.S. "deathstar" satellites to deliver its 150 channels of pay-per-view movie and sports programming.
  ...
  Tee-Comm's stock (TEN/TSE) got a boost from the CRTC's ruling. Shares that closed at $2.85 Monday, the day before the ruling, closed yesteday at $3.45.
  ...
  Milton Ont.-based Tee-Comm is one of North America's largest manufacturers and distributors of home-satellite systems, the "big dish" systems popular in rural neighborhoods where cable television service isn't offered.
  Tee-Comm has 60% of the Canadian satellite-TV market and 25% of the big U.S. market.
3. Dalglish, Brenda (1995-12-26). "Retail buyers show faith in Tee-Comm's technology". Financial Post.
  The article notes:
  
  Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. has had a very good year on the stock market, but a more disappointing one in the laboratory. The stock price of the Milton, Ont., electronics equipment manufacturer more than tripled during the year as investors rushed to get in on the direct-to-home satellite television service that Tee-Comm is helping to develop. But Tee-Comm missed several promised launch dates in the fall, as it worked to resolve problems with the new technology.
  Tee-Comm, which has been manufacturing satellite antennas and receiving dishes since 1983, is developing the receiving dish and set-top receiver box and some of the other associated technology necessary to create a DTH network.
  The article also interviews two analysts:
  Analysts say buyers are almost entirely retail investors rather than institutions, largely because of the speculative nature of the technology involved. They say enthusiasm for the stock got out of control and the shares were due for a correction even before the company said last week its new launch date is expected toward the end of the first quarter of 1996.
  "I expect the stock to sell off because they're losing credibility each time they miss a launch date," said one analyst who commented on the condition he was not identified.
  "The only way the current price can be justified is if you think they're going to do well in the United States," said another analyst. "I don't think they're going to pull it off. They still have to prove that their boxes work."
  However, both analysts agreed the fact that Tee-Comm has missed some short-term deadlines is not a fundamental disaster as long as its technology pans out.
4. Ingram, Matthew (1995-09-26). "Tee-Comm Electronics flying high Interest in Ontario-based satellite-TV company growing in the United States". The Globe and Mail.
  The article notes:
  
  Over the past few months, Tee-Comm Electronics Inc.'s stock has been flying as high as the satellites it plans to use for its direct-to-home television service - as visions of the "cable of the future" dance in investors' heads.
  Interest has been growing south of the border in particular, where players on the Nasdaq Stock Market are more accustomed to paying high multiples for relatively unproven technology stocks.
  ...
  Larry Woods - a professional investor who runs the Niagara Hedge Fund based in Stoney Creek, Ont. - says he is a long-time fan of Tee-Comm, although he doesn't currently hold any of the stock.
  "It's a phenomenal Canadian success story," he says. "It's become one of the leading companies in North America when it comes to this technology. Now they have American broadcast capability, and they're one of the only companies I know with an MPEG-2 set-top box. They've got it all."
5. Dummett, Ben (1997-05-23). "Tee-Comm's Bank Places Firm In Receivership; Board Resigns". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Tee-Comm Electronics Inc., hurt by price wars in the U.S. satellite-television industry, said its bank put it into receivership and demanded repayment of the firm's credit line.
  Tee-Comm, an operator of satellite television services, also said its board resigned, including the company's founder, Al Bahnman. Mr. Bahnman remains president and chief executive officer.
  ...
  Tee-Comm's rivals were able to subsidize their products, because they had access to "deep pockets" that Tee-Comm lacked, said Philip Benson, industry analyst at MMI Group Inc. in Toronto. DirecTV is owned by Hughes Electronics Corp., a division of General Motors Corp. PrimeStar is owned by a group of cable operators including Tele-Communications Inc. and Time Warner Inc.
  ...
  Tee-Comm has been looking for a strategic partner for the past couple of years without success because it entered the U.S. market behind its rivals, Mr. Benson said.
6. Brehl, Robert (1997-05-22). "Satellite TV company hits a black hole Bank reviewing Tee-Comm's credit facility". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Tee-Comm shares, which had a 52-week high of $16.10, have been hammered lately.
  They closed yesterday at 68 cents on the Toronto Stock Exchange, down 21 cents.
  Can Tee-Comm be saved?
  "Let's put it this way, I shook my head last weekend when I saw my neighbor at the cottage with a new AlphaStar dish," said Philip Benson, an industry analyst with MMI Group Inc.
7. Brehl, Robert (1996-08-16). "Tee-Comm ready to offer satellite TV". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Yesterday, tiny Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. made it clear it has had it with phone giant BCE Inc. and other partners in grounded satellite company ExpressVu Inc.
  ExpressVu and BCE are not exactly enamored with Tee-Comm, either.
  Now Tee-Comm is going it alone - promising to be the "first" to launch a Canadian direct-to-home satellite service called AlphaStar Canada.
8. "Tee-Comm Unit in Town of Tonawanda Files for Bankruptcy". The Buffalo News. 1997-06-03. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  The article notes:
  
  A second unit of satellite television company Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. has filed for bankruptcy court protection from its creditors.
  Tee-Comm Distribution Inc., 250 Cooper Ave., Town of Tonawanda, listed assets of $10 million and liabilities of approximately $105 million, according to papers filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware on Friday
  A week ago, another unit of Tee-Comm Electronics, AlphaStar Television Network Inc. of Stamford, Conn., filed for Chapter 11 protection.
  ...
  Tee-Comm Electronics, based in Montreal, has 50,000 subscribers in the United States and 6,000 in Canada.
9. Brehl, Robert (1996-06-19). "TV-dish imports spark tussle Tee-Comm denies dealers' charges". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
10. Rubin, Sandra (1994-06-02). "Tee-Comm takes on giants with TV dish". The Hamilton Spectator. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Milton-based Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. has a message for a newly formed consortium of Canadian communications giants who have a plan to beam scores of TV channels to tiny home satellite dishes.
  Tee-Comm wants in -- but not at any cost, the company's management said yesterday.
  ...
  Tee-Comm, Canada's largest manufacturer of home satellite systems, is negotiating with the consortium.
11. Brehl, Robert (1996-05-31). "Tee-Comm slaps a lid on ExpressVu spending". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. will not let the problem-plagued ExpressVu Inc. drag the company down, Tee-Comm's chairman says.
  Milton-based Tee-Comm was one of the original investors in the direct-to-home satellite company that just can't seem to get to market.
  Tee-Comm has passed on the last two cash calls at ExpressVu and equity has slipped from 33 per cent to 22 per cent. Tee-Comm will spend no more on ExpressVu but will focus on the U.S. satellite service called AlphaStar, of which Tee-Comm owns 97 per cent, chairman Al Bahnman told the annual meeting.
12. Brehl, Robert (1997-05-09). "Tee-Comm takes beating One-time darling of Bay Street drops to 85 cents". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Canada's only operational direct-to-home satellite TV company was hammered on the stock market yesterday, losing almost 60 per cent of its value.
  Once the darling of Bay Street, Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. fell to 85 cents yesterday, down $1.20 on extremely heavy trading of 3.4 million shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
  Tee-Comm, which owns AlphaStar Canada, had a 52-week high of $16.10.
  The company has long been looking for a white knight and yesterday it issued a news release that triggered a wave of selling.
13. Brehl, Robert (1997-02-15). "Local entrant holds own in TV dish race Tee-Comm brings product to U.S. market". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Tee-Comm has had problems, management and shareholders acknowledge. Its launch of AlphaStar was delayed over and over for about a year until it finally got going in the fall.
  Many observers, including the president of rival ExpressVu and some financial analysts, wonder if AlphaStar has the money to keep going much longer. Tee-Comm has reportedly been close many times to finding partners with deep pockets, but still no official announcement.
  AlphaStar's dish is not nearly as nifty as the popular DirecTV and EchoStar dishes from the United States. It is a lot smaller than those old eight-foot dishes out in the country or obtrusively atop urban sports bars.
14. Masters, Ian G. (1998-01-01). "Plenty of surprises in store for '98". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  The article notes:
  
  The sourest note in all this is that one of the pioneering companies in consumer satellite distribution was not able to survive. AlphaStar had the distinction of being the first Canadian service in operation, but its parent company - Tee-Comm Electronics - went broke just as the other services were launching. Tee-Comm had been a member of the original ExpressVu consortium, but had dropped out as its partners dithered, and set up its own service.
  It didn't have the financial depth of the giant phone and cable companies behind the other services, however, and it foundered.
15. Futch, Michael (1997-08-31). "More Americans Turn to Dishes". The Fayetteville Observer. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  The article notes:
  
  At this time, AlphaStar -- with about 58,000 subscribers -- is not a serious option. Its parent company is Tee-Comm Electronics. The Canadian company has its troubles, having filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy several months ago. It is proceeding through bankruptcy and the sale of its assets.
  Earlier this month, AlphaStar subscribers stopped receiving the service signal.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tee-Comm Electronics to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Cunard well knows, the test is *not* "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which confuses more editors into thinking that the sources simply have to be unconnected with the company, but rather (as explained in detail in WP:ORGIND) must be both functionally and intellectually independent. Many of his deceptively selective quotations above omit the parts that show the reference fails intellectual independence. I randomly selected two references above (5 and 9) and both exclusively rely on connected sources. Most of the other references appear to be incidental and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. There are a very few occasions when Cunard references something that meets the criteria for establishing notability but Cunard has ignored calls for him in the past to 1) Stop posting his references in this manner 2) Read NCORP, especially ORGIND. Since he can't be bothered, I don't see why others should take his efforts seriously either. I'm of the opinion that none of the individual references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources:
1. Acheson, Keith; Maule, Christopher John (2001). Much Ado about Culture: North American Trade Disputes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-08789-1. Retrieved 2018-09-18.
  The book notes:
  
  1995: DirecTV protests to FCC Tee-Comm's application to provide a DTH service, AlphaStar, in the United States.
  ...
  1996: Tee-Comm leaves ExpressVu Inc. and licenses AlphaStar in Canada.
  ...
  1997: AlphaStar, Star Choice, ExpressVu initiate licensed service.
  ...
  1997: AlphaStar goes out of business.
  ...
  Like TRIO, Newsworld, and MuchMusic, Tee-Comm went continental and launched its AlphaStar service in the United States on July 1, 1996. Tee-Comm then applied for and received a license to launch its service in Canada.²¹ The CRTC allowed AlphaStar to deliver its Canadian services using American satellites until it could arrange to obtain space on Canadian satellites. By the end of May 1997, AlphaStar was out of business and Tee-Comm was in receivership. At the time of its bankruptcy, there were an estimated 7,000 subscribers in Canada and 60,000 in the United States.²²
  
  Footnotes
  
  21. CRTC Decision 97–87, Ottawa, February 27, 1997.
  22. Globe and Mail, August 7, 1997, B1, B6.
  The article notes:
  The CRTC's treatment of satellite carriage in the DTH dispute generated a response in the American regulatory arena. Tee-Comm had contracted with AT&T for satellite services to deliver its AlphaStar service in the United States. DirecTV requested the American broadcasting regulator, the FCC, to deny AlphaStar the right to provide the DTH service. The request was based on two arguments. One was that delivering a DTH signal using a Canadian uplink was illegal. The second was couched in terms of "fundamental fairness." DirecTV maintained that allowing AlphaStar to operate in the United States if DirecTV could not provide a service in Canada was unfair. Tee-Comm and AT&T responded to both allegations. They claimed that all uplinking services could and would, if necessary, originate in the United States.³² With regard to the fairness issue, they told the FCC that "procedures in Canada are changing and may permit the market entry that DirecTV is seeking."³³ When the Canadian directives to the CRTC established rules for licensing consistent with Power DirecTV's business plan, DirecTV withdrew its petition and the FCC dismissed it without prejudice.
  ...
  
  Footnotes
  
  31. CRTC Decisions 93–235, and 93–236, Ottawa, June 25, 1993.
  32. See "DirecTV attempts to block AlphaStar U.S. DTH bid at FCC," Satellite News. May 22, 1995.
2. Nohria, Nitin (1998). The Portable MBA Desk Reference: An Essential Business Companion. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-24530-8. Retrieved 2018-09-18.
  The book discusses "demand lending" and gives Tee-Comm as an example. The book notes:
  Tee-Comm Electronics, Inc., a satellite television company in Milton, Ontario, fell into receivership when the Bank of Montreal called for immediate payment of a loan worth more than $34 million. After reaching a high on the Toronto Stock Exchange of $18.75, shares of Tee-Comm fell to $0.68 in May 1997 (Dalglish 1997).
  
  [Reference]
  
  Daglish, Brenda. 1997. Tee-Comm slides into receivership. Financial Post (Toronto), 23 May, 1.
3. Waal, Peter (1997). "Tee-Comm's fall to earth is met with controversy and threats". Canadian Business. Retrieved 2018-09-18.
  The article notes:
  
  File this under the heading "Investment Protection." On May 23, 1997, at about 8 p.m., two men in suits showed up unannounced at Tee-Comm Electronics Inc.'s offices in Milton, Ont. Tee- Comm, a Canadian direct-to- home (DTH) digital satellite-TV company, had recently gone into receivership.
  Claiming to represent "a significant Winnipeg investor," the men told Tee-Comm president and CEO Al Bahnman that the investor was extremely upset about having lost his money and that he wanted it back. Believing the two men were simply naïve, Bahman laughed off their request and …
  …
  In May, Bank of Montreal forced the former Bay Street darling—which one had a market capitalization of $500 million and attracted high-profile board members, including, briefly, Perrin Beatty—into receivership and its US subsidiary, AlphaStar Television Network Inc. into Chapter 11 (the US bankruptcy protection clause). That left many investors, especially Nesbitt Burns Inc., which had a sizable holding in Tee-Comm stock out of luck.
  ...
  Clive Hobson, Tee-Comm's former investor relations manager, says the company also received threatening calls from irate DTH dealers and customers and that Tee-Comm's Miami office was threatened a couple of times by investors from Puerto Rico.
Cunard (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus (talk · contribs), what are your thoughts about the sources I provided above? Here is a summary of the information from the sources (sometimes closely paraphrased):
1. In 1994, Tee-Comm was Canada's largest manufacturer of home satellite systems.
2. In 1994, Tee-Comm had 60% of the Canadian satellite-TV market and 25% of the big U.S. market.
3. Tee-Comm was a publicly traded company on the Toronto Stock Exchange and at one point had a market capitalization of $500 million.
4. Tee-Comm attracted high-profile board members including Perrin Beatty.
5. When the company went bankrupt, BMO Nesbitt Burns held a significant portion of the shares.
6. Harvard Business Professor Nitin Nohria included Tee-Comm as an example of "demand lending" in his 1998 book The Portable MBA Desk Reference.
7. The analysts Alvin Mirman of Gruntal & Co. Inc. and Philip Benson of MMI Group Inc. followed the company in the 1990s. There likely are numerous other analysts who have followed the company and written analyst reports about it because sources like Financial Post say, "Tee-Comm's track record for failing to meet optimistic financial projections seems to have scared several analysts away from the company." Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations, analyst reports can be used to establish notability. It is difficult to obtain such analyst reports today because Tee-Comm went bankrupt 21 years ago.
8. A 1995 Financial Post article interviews two analysts about Tee-Comm. One analyst says, "I expect the stock to sell off because they're losing credibility each time they miss a launch date". The second analyst says, "The only way the current price can be justified is if you think they're going to do well in the United States. I don't think they're going to pull it off. They still have to prove that their boxes work."
9. The Toronto Star interviewed Philip Benson, an industry analyst at MMI Group Inc. about whether Tee-Comm could be saved from bankruptcy. Benson said, "Let's put it this way, I shook my head last weekend when I saw my neighbor at the cottage with a new AlphaStar dish."
I think there is enough information here to demonstrate the company's significance. I think the sources have provided enough independent analysis of the company (from the analysts' critical comments, for example). What do you think?
Cunard (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom. This time you found excellent sources indeed. #2 by itself would be sufficient. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are delete !votes, this AFD can't be closed on that basis alone. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent sources by Cunard, who found numerous, significant pieces in major Canadian newspapers with national distribution. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Piotrus:, @Patar knight:, perhaps you or someone else could point me to any reference that meets the criteria for Intellectual Independence, specifically Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The best example I can find is the book "Much Ado about Culture: North American Trade Disputes" mentioned above but oddly enough, I cannot find the parts quoted - but even so there's enough in the book to meet the criteria for establishing notability. A minimum of two references are required. If you guys have found another, let me know and I'll change my current Delete !vote and the nom can be withdrawn. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dispute the proposed deletion because this is a company that is the heritage of the first direct digital to home satellite TV service. KJRehberg (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Island Groceries

(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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, non-notable online grocery store. No notable Ghits. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails GNG. I don't see any third-party reliable source that might help in expansion and establish notability. KCVelaga (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Başkaya

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

Nothing that meets notability requirements. Created by SPA. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable chancer. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. A secondary school award and 3rd place in a high school competition are not significant awards, and the article lacks any reliable sources with in-depth coverage about the topic. A Google search just shows a few listings in common online databases, social media and job portals. Probably worth salting: biographical information for the same topic by the same editor has been repeatedly recreated at Mansger. GermanJoe (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as obviously lacking notable adult accomplishments. Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. GermanJoe makes the case well, and I have nothing to add. Edwardx (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable person who doesn't meet WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2018 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Kumar Ranjan

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:NBIO as I can find no substantial coverage of him in reliable independent sources. He is the principal of the probably non-notable Ambition Law Institute, writes books on how to pass legal exams and does some lecturing. He does not seem to have published in any peer-reviewed journals. The article is promotional and most of the sources hardly mention him. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also could not find substantial coverage to meet WP:NBIO or any other criteria. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-This's quasi G11-able stuff.And, per nom:-)∯WBG^converse 13:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Draftify. Clear consensus to get it out of mainspace. Going with draft vs a straight delete per WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glover's Medicated Salt Cake

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

It existed but nothing more.Nothing on JSTor or PUBMED or Highbeam et al....Advertisements about the product are existent at this link. ∯WBG^converse 09:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Other than the original patent, I can't find anything that talks about this at all. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glover's Medicated Salt Cake participants: SquidSK (talk · contribs), Vulture19 (talk · contribs), Joe407 (talk · contribs), Sundropman05 (talk · contribs), Warrior4321 (talk · contribs), Glenfarclas (talk · contribs), Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), BD2412 (talk · contribs), Metropolitan90 (talk · contribs), and Ihcoyc (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft and let's do some research. Apparently I looked into this somewhat during the previous AfD and found other "Glover's" medicinal products, but was unable to connect those to the one in this article. However, if there is a notable company behind this product, we should expand this into an article on that company. bd2412 T 12:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be a notable product. Google Books finds only patent office records. News, newspapers, scholar, and books are equally unavailing; seems to be a well before the internet thing. Motivation for the article seems to be that the displays for the product are collected as antiques. Pictures may well be useful at appropriate articles; we apparently do not have an article on agricultural salt blocks. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:10, 11 September 2018 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Fiore (actor)

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

Subject does not appear to meet either WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. Although there have been some appearances in some fairly well-known TV shows, most of the roles appear to have been minor characters and not meeting item 1 of NACTOR. Same goes for career as a producer. I tried WP:BEFORE, and I also tried asking for feedback at WT:FILMBIO#John Fiore (actor) where someone suggested AfD. I have no doubt that Fiore is an actor, but I'm just not sure if there's enough WP:SIGCOV of him in reliable sources to support a stand-alone article. As an alternative to deletion, a redirect to an article like List of The Sopranos characters#Gigi Cestone or List of Law & Order characters#27th Precinct Support Detectives might be possible since they appear to be his most notable roles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Boy, this one is tough, and definitely merits a thorough AfD discussion – I'll be curious to see what other comments say (as my mind is open on this one)... Fiore actually gets a fair number of mentions in Variety, and a couple of them might be considered more than simply incidental. In addition, Teblick found these three sources on the subject – [39], [40], [41] – now, two of those might be considered "local coverage" (Fiore is from the Boston-area), but they're not nothing. However, when I look for other coverage in places like THR, LA Times (all the "hits" here seem to be for a conductor, also with the name "John Fiore"...), Entertainment Weekly or Deadline Hollywood, I'm not finding enough that I feel this gets "pushed over the top". In addition, I don't feel like Fiore technically meets WP:NACTOR – his Law & Order and Sopranos roles were "recurring", not "main cast", and it looks like the only film Fiore actually headlined was the small indie film Johnny Slade's Greatest Hits. So, this essentially comes down to – Does Fiore meet WP:BASIC anyway, without meeting WP:NACTOR?! This question is probably a judgement call, and on my end I feel like the subject falls just a little short. YMMV... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks anything that is even close to indepth reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The most comprehensive "delete" argument is a "weak delete" - more opinions needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nomination pretty much tells us everything, firstly congrats for a very detailed one that describes every single reason why this article is just not a keeper. He did appear in some very notable shows like Person of Interest for example, but his role in all of them are minor, that much that it just does not establish the needed notability. So he already fails WP:NACTOR. Looking at the sources IJBall posted, I just do not think they are enough to show that he is notable of any kind in those regards as well. And as per nom and even the article itself, it also fails in WP:BIO. All around, strong delete for me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2018 (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) KCVelaga (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toks

(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. This was prodded twice (ping User:SwisterTwister. The refs are very poor - self-ref, mention in passing in some marketing research, and a de facto press release masquerading as an article. I am not seeing anything else. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A chain of nearly 200 restaurants is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to which policy? Please point out the part of WP:NORG that talks about size. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a policy for everything. We just need the application of common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found a few articles that talk about Toks (beyond simple mentions): [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], and many others. Most of them talk about it's growth, business strategies, and current status. Please feel free to ping me if you need a text translated. MX (✉ • ✎) 13:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need more time, but I will expand the article. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Went through above sources by MX and they clearly show detailed coverage, chain of over 100 restaurants.–Ammarpad (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roshani Chokshi

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

I created this article in October 2017, but am now thinking it was WP:TOOSOON and I'm not sure there is WP:SIGCOV. Looking for more recent coverage did give me an LA Times article from April this year, but I can't access it as I'm in the EU. Tacyarg (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the essay Nom mentions to the page, it's an essay by an author in the same genre Chokshi writes in, not a reported article, but, still, the Los Angeles Times. Also just added the review that ran in the New York Times. I can see more sources in a search on her name, and her debut book did win prizes. I appreciate article creator's revisiting the notability quesiton, but I think we're there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, E.M.Gregory - I think her first novel was a finalist rather than a winner? Tacyarg (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the reviews (of which I added only a couple to the page,) and at articles about her form which page can - an d should - be expanded. Passes WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory. Satisfies WP:AUTHOR. James500 (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue. User pages can be nominated at WP:MFD, but in this case, I'm going to nominate it for WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 09:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dev Foundation

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

No sources, nothing but promotion. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, but this is not an article but a userpage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Eurodance. As has been suggested in the discussion, the title is quite useless as a search term, so my suggestion would be that the page be tagged for non-controversial deletion per this AfD once the merge has been performed. Vanamonde (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hands up (music)

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

Music genre article is a recent creation of editor now blocked re WP:RS issues. Sibling article is also in AfD. On point, this article's four existing citations are not RS. Searches do not seem to demonstrate the nominal topic will meet GNG's bar of "significant coverage." Someone with more category expertise may be able to locate sufficient coverage, but I did not. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable Ghits. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG nor WP:NMUSIC. Could be a garage band situation. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Eurodance, at best a pretty obscure sub-genre of Eurodance, but you'll struggle to find reliable sources for it. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:V. Here is the link to the previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hands up (music genre), and my reasoning for my deletion vote still stands. I wouldn't even redirect it to Eurodance, as there aren't any reliable sources to link it to that. Richard3120 (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eurodance. Though the current sourcing is quite poor, the term is at least verifiable ([54] [55] [56]) and has at least four explanations (that are mostly overlapping) seen here: [57] [58] [59] [60]. All these results appeared in a Google News search with such terms as "hands up is" and "hands up genre". Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is whether Eurodance is the correct merger target – it's only mentioned in two of the seven sources you cite, and at least one of those sources is non-RS. One of the other sources calls it a derivative of hardstyle (and so does this German source [61]), and yet another of the above sources says it's a slowed-down version of happy hardcore. Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/merge or plain delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:21, 28 August 2018 (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) 08:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above comments but maybe don't Redirect. A pretty useless search term but the content appears to be verifiable. Redditaddict6 9 09:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? Or delete? A final shout-out
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 22:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, the refs offered above support the claim it is a variation of eurodance unambiguously. Szzuk (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, consider this style is most popular in Germany (so experts will likely be German and don't frequent English wiki), having a merged version under eurodance will allow more editors to stumble upon/work on the article. HKO2006 (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walk to Remember

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

WP:MILL fundraiser event. The sponsoring charity doesn't seem to use this name anymore, although "Walk Ten" seems ongoing. Nothing to indicate this charity's events are unusual in any way. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond promotion of particular instances of this recurring event. Daask (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local coverage only, fails WP:AUD (product/event). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also could only find local coverage. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zobo Funn Band

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

Unsourced band article, fails WP:MUSIC. » Shadowowl | talk 16:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found to establish notability. Search results only show YouTube links, other music listings. Fails WP:GNG. KCVelaga (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2018 (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. per WP:SNOW. and WP:HEY sources added into the article to establish the notability. (non-admin closure) DBig Xrayᗙ 15:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Ponomaryova (singer)

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

Non notable singer, page is completely unreferenced and no indication of coverage anywhere on the internet aNode (discuss) 06:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In reviewing her album with Bill Laswell, Sergey Kuryokhin, etc., Thom Jurek described the subject as "a legend in Eastern Europe for her four-octave range, her ability to improvise modally and tonally with any instrument on the planet, and her near inexhaustible energy".[62] AllyD (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one can describe her like that, but it doesn't save the fact that she has very little coverage online thus showing that she's not notable, plus the whole article is unreferenced breaking WP:BLP policies. aNode (discuss) 12:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree about the lack in referencing of the original article translated from the Russian equivalent (and would also caution about some of the External Links offered, as they are triggering malware warnings). The Russian source article also lacks coverage of the subject's musical activities during the 80s and 90s which brought her wider attention. I have added some material on that, as well as flagging the need for BLP sources on the earlier biography. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage online if you look for the usual spelling of her name: Valentina Ponomareva. The article should be moved to this spelling, rather than the present more literal transliteration. Note also that the Russian article cites plenty of sources. --Deskford (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This may be the first AfD of an article of whose subject I have one LP in her own name, another anthology featuring her, and possibly also an anthology CD somewhere. Not in itself a reason to keep, but these are all from the phases of her activities which were omitted from the focus on her earlier institutional career in the original translated-Russian article, but which have now been appended to the text, and referenced. I haven't been able to find my copy of a further print item which could add further, but I think there is now enough to demonstrate the subject's WP:MUSICBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deskford ~~and AllyD~~ see WP:MUSTBESOURCES it will really help this AfD if you can add the link of the strong sources you are talking about. claiming Strong sources exist isn't a satisfactory argument to make. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify on sources, in my "keep" opinion I was relying on the articles I had referenced into the article (Efim Barban, Jon Corbett, Ben Watson) and linked previously in the discussion (Thom Jurek). AllyD (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AllyD please accept my apology, I failed to notice that you have commented twice on this AfD. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the sources in. Does she have any charting singles though? aNode (discuss) 14:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Keep comments are weak and based on WP:MUSTBESOURCES
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DBig Xrayᗙ 12:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Russian-language version of the article is a bit messy, but gives a number of reliable sources. Agree with 'keep' votes above. Bondegezou (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Dynamics

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

The article fails to meet the general notability guideline in WP:NOTE. To check for significant coverage, I searched Google for information about Comedy Dynamics, and found that most of the articles were personal interviews with the CEO and founder of the company. Searching the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes yielded nothing of significance, if anything at all. To check reliability, I tried verifying the claim that Comedy Dynamics is the largest independent comedy label, although their website does not explain what largest means (most annual revenue? number of employees? albums released?). No source has made this claim except for the company itself and online opinion contributors who interviewed the CEO (neither reliable, nor secondary). The only reliable reporting about Comedy Dynamics that I found is this article by a journalist for the WSJ who found that Netflix paid Comedy Dynamics to make vinyl releases of its comedy albums, which were sold unannounced in small quantities for the primary purpose of qualifying Netflix shows for the Grammy awards.

There are a couple of points worth mentioning about the article's edits because they shed light on whether they are made by someone independent of the subject. First, there are only two major contributors to this article's content: User:ComedyFan2015 and User:66.215.16.130. These two accounts added and edited 94% of the article's content. I traced the IP address 66.215.16.130 to 2660 W Olive Ave, Burbank, CA 91505, which is the physical address of Comedy Dynamics. Second, the edits made by ComedyFan2015 and 66.215.16.130 were routine updates to the lengthy filmography, discography, and videography sections. Given the difficulty I had in trying to find information about this company, the monthly edits from these two accounts suggest intimate knowledge of the company's business. Third, the routine edits seem to trade off between these two accounts, and the edits the two accounts are making are substantially the same like here and here. It is possible these two accounts are directed by the same person or organization. Fourth, in the past few months a new user account has been editing the article, User:ComedyDynamics. The username suggests an obvious COI. Finally, perhaps unsurprisingly, Users ComedyFan2015, 66.215.16.130, and ComedyDynamics are contributors to the article about the company's CEO Brian Volk-Weiss. The content in the Brian Volk-Weiss article overlaps significantly with the Comedy Dynamics article. The article about Brian Volk-Weiss was authored primarily by User:Echidna1989, who exclusively writes and edits WP articles relating to Comedy Dynamics.

There is no doubt in my mind: Comedy Dynamics meets none of Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I anticipate that there will be pushback from the accounts ComedyFan2015, 66.215.16.130, and/or ComedyDynamics because of their investment in the subject matter. My message to these users would be that this AfD process is about Wikipedia policy, and passes no judgment about the company. The fact that Comedy Dynamics does not belong in a worldwide English-language encyclopedia reflects the scope of the encyclopedia, not the significance of the company in its industry. Thank you for your review. Romhilde (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is well developed, but seems to fail WP:NORG. All the 'good sources' (Forbes, etc.) are inteviews, weakest possible type of a reliable source, per WP:INTERVIEW. If this is pruned down to content that's based in reliable, non-interview source, not sure if anything would remain that would go beyond WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excellent analysis by nom, clearly none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notabaility, failing ORGIND mainly. Topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:03, 17 September 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1776 (company)

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

promotional article on non notable company. Fails NCORP. The only RS is a brief mention of a visit from a dignitary. Article mostly written by single purpose editor, after prev version by 4 successive spa's was deleted. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standard variety spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like an advertisement Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only looks like an advert, it is an advert. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous comments. --MarioGom (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurritoSlayer/Archive#06 August 2018 for behavioral proof of Breeze897 being a sockpuppet of an undisclosed paid editing operation. --MarioGom (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam and an advertisement. Fails WP:PROMO AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:31, 12 September 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent Seven (business schools)

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

Article lacks sufficient independent sources to establish the notability of the subject ElKevbo (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum it should probably be M7 (business schools) since there seems to be some disagreement on whether it is Magnificent or Magic 7 or some other M word. A Forbes article from December 2015 uses the term M7 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattsymonds/2015/12/30/the-sum-of-all-the-business-school-rankings-of-2015/#653037e45637), but, I couldn't find much earlier. I couldn't seem to find it in a google books search. --Erp (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the "Forbes article" is really an "article written by a Forbes contributor" so it's essentially a blog post or editorial that is not endorsed by Forbes editors. ElKevbo (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly trying to date earliest use. This has not been a term used for long and the top seven schools is almost certain to change over time (unlike terms like 'Ivy League' which have been around for a while and aren't rank dependent). The major user of the term seems to be a web site Poets & Quants. I'm inclined to Delete.--Erp (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (neologisms)... errr, I mean WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete just marketing crap sourced to crappy blogs, a Forbes contributor, and the schools themselves, that has been spammed into each of the relevant business school pages as well as this page being created, all by a determined user named "M7bswiki" (now renamed to Genericusername9631. I had, btw, tagged this for speedy deletion as spam, and M7bswiki, in violation of the WP:SPEEDY policy, stripped the tag here. Universities themselves (and their contractors) as well as alum are some of the most tenacious abusers of WP for promotion; their reputations are their main selling point and they see WP as a vehicle for saying How Great They Are. We have an essay just for them: WP:BOOSTER. This is entirely typical of that genre. Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cringe. Jytdog has constantly been intimidating and harassing my page as if he's an administrator with the intent to finally prove his unshaken and belief that I'm a paid advertiser. What an obnoxious, tumultuous user. Why don't you shove your "righteous duty to uphold the five pillars of Wikipedia" right up your ass. As for the page, it's up for the Wikipedia community to decide whether to delete (and surprise, I'm not anal about it), but the information I provided has been there for several years long before my participation in Wikipedia. To sum up, I have no affiliation with any of the schools mentioned and could not care if the community decides to delete; what bothers me is the persistent online harassment by a particular disruptive user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericusername9631 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reviewing strictly for notability, this fails WP:GNG. The references included on the page are not reliable. Even the Forbes piece is written by a contributor so it needs to be taken more of an opinion piece than a reliable source. The others are not independent as they are from university websites who are part of the terminology. I found a few references such as Financial Times which verify the term is used, but there is nothing out there that gives any depth to the term to meet notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marketing crap, towards manufacturing some elitist cachet. I never heard of this term, and I would have if it had any merit. --Doncram (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly sourced by Forbes, Poets & Quants user-generated contributors and MBA promotional websites. Also potentially confusing with some non-notable organizations like M7 Financial (now mbaMission, founded by Jeremy Shinewald) [63] [64] It is not clear which poll of the List of United States graduate business school rankings determines M7 and whether membership can change. There's M7 stuff in each of the business school articles, so that should be scrubbed depending on the results of this AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marketing crap. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:31, 9 September 2018 (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. Tone 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Nguyen (basketball)

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS, not drafted, only played in the VBA. Passing mentions only in reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. JC7V-constructive zone 04:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The only signficant coverage I found was this article at AseanSports.com, which I am not familiar with but will give benefit of the doubt that it is reliable. Does not meet SNG WP:NHOOPS either.—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a few sources to the article to at least source the statements there. It is possible there are some sources in the Vietnamese speaking media, a super short search turned these up [65] [66]. I might take a better look at it tonight. — Dammit_steve (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't necessarily apply to you, but my usual caveat is that unless we are fluent in the foreign language or familiar with the publisher's country, many on English Wikipedia too readily assume that any hit on Google is a reliable source, whereas we'd be more able to filter promotional, non-reliable, or non-independent sources written in English from countries which we are more familiar. For sports, it's all too common that non-notable bios are created because a writer mistakenly believes that any pro player in the world is inherently notable and deserves an article.—Bagumba (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No offence taken on my part. In AFD discussions like these where I'm unfamiliar with the league and the country media I usually stay neutral and just post possible reliable sources to help others decide. Dammit_steve (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google translate makes these sources pretty easy to assess. To me they seem fair - I would certainly want significantly more to pass GNG, but more than a passing mention. Sort of moves the bar in the right direction but doesn't demonstrate enough. Just as importantly, both sources are from the same publisher, so we only have one not terribly impressive source here.Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 22:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely doesn't meet the notability criteria for basketball players. As best I can tell, WP:GNG is not met, either. Papaursa (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NHOOPS is not met, but that's not as thorough a guideline as some of the other NSPORTS guidelines. I think there's enough coverage in Vietnamese to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in Vietanemse aren't impressive as stated by Rlendog and they don't show that he passes NSPorts or WP:GNG. He fails WP:NHOOPs as you state too. Plus nearly all basketball players from that league don't have articles. JC7V-constructive zone 20:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As discussed, doesn’t seem to meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madness: Their Nightmare, My Reality

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, there does not appear to be any mention of the book outside of ecommerce sites, self-published, and the editor that both created the page and has contributed the most to it has not responded to a conflict of interest tag on their talk page. Rosguill^talk 03:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Strong delete, noting that this was a AfC submission declined twice in March and once in August. The notability and promotionality concerns of the AfC reviewers were not at all addressed (in fact, the article was not substantially changed since shortly before the first review) and was moved to mainspace without satisfying inclusion criteria. I've found no coverage besides listings where the book is sold, on Amazon, etc. Pretty much blatant self-promotion, and unlikely to be improved. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) CSD G13 does not apply to this page. CSD G13 only applies to abandoned drafts or submissions in the draft space or user space. It does not apply to any page in the mainspace, or any page that has not been abandoned. (2) There is no promotion in this article, which appears to be neutrally written. James500 (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  James500, I am aware that G13 does not apply. I think it's almost certain that this will fall under WP:SNOW though. If people don't agree, obviously I'd be wrong, but unfortunately, I feel the articles fate will be exactly the same as the poor snowball. I guess using that as the first response to the AfD is a bit crystal-y though :/ Probably should have just called it strong delete instead. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish the author well, but there's just nothing out there to show that this book is notable enough to pass WP:NBOOK. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are clearly not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, and I haven't been able to find any coverage in reliable sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find this book in WorldCat. James500 (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Book does not pass WP:NBOOK.Auldhouse (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - fails WP:NBOOK. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The username of the article author is the same as the initials of the book's author, and the account is a WP:SPA; leads me to believe the article is WP:PROMOTION. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2018 (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) Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yakult

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

This is a blatant advertisement cited mostly to the company websites, then to primary sources from the biomedical literature (which are invalid per WP:MEDRS but common as dirt among people who shill "health" products like this). There is one government source that is used in violation of the WP:SYN policy to talk about sugar content. I tagged it for speedy and that was stripped. This should not be polluting mainspace - it serves the company, not people trying to learn. Please shovel this dogshit off our sidewalk so innocent people don't step in it. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without judging the state of the article as-is, it does look like there may be some other sources out there. Here's one from Express criticizing probiotic drinks, with much of the attention directed at Yakult; here's another one from Today talking about the product getting a sales boost from a recent TV series, and a similar one from news.com.au. Here's Science Daily reporting a study from World Journal of Gastroenterology, but I am not familiar with WP:MEDRS to know if that is acceptable. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major brand and there are numerous more sources out there for it. Insofar as it makes health claims, that's just like numerous other food and drink brands – "Guinness is good for you"; Special K is "full of goodness"; "A Mars a day helps you work, rest and play"; "Red Bull gives you wings", &c. I myself recently started an article about quite a lethal concoction which was sold as a big business for many years – Godfrey's Cordial. We should have articles about all of these as, otherwise, readers will mainly be left with the real adverts. Andrew D. (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ("snow"): This is a clearly notable product, and without looking very carefully, the article certainly does not look like spamvertising. (Disclaimer: my father-in-law worked for them.) Imaginatorium (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found significant coverage of the company in the New York Times, and Fortune, and in Milk: Beyond the Dairy: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 1999, and in Advanced Dairy Chemistry Volume 3. This is a large multinational company with a long history, and this encyclopedia ought to have a policy compliant article about it. Just remove the promotional content and anything that violates MEDRS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue obviously isn't notability for company or product, as even the most casual English-language search reveals a popular product and a company with a colorful history: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]. Jytdog rightly points out that the issue is WP:PROMO. Would taking out the entire "Nutritional Value" section, the sentences on cosmetics and chemotherapy, and the "marketed in different sizes" paragraph address the main promotional concern, and leave a workable article to fill out with easily-located WP:RS-sourced information about the subject? Bakazaka (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag as promotional or rewrite. I agree with Bakazaka, the company/product passes WP:NORG, it is just not neutral. That can be fixed with tags, no need for nuking. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You're joking, right? This stuff is everywhere. Clearly notable product. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as can be seen by the number of sources on the company, ranging from its product, reference in popular culture, to scientific research - just a few here - [74][75][76][77] (I even know people whose scientific research in a top academic institution was funded by the company, and their research wasn't about the company's products but basic science). Easily satisfies WP:GNG. Any concerns about promotion can be fixed, and there are also review articles [78] on such product in scientific journals if there is a need to fix any claims about its health benefit. Hzh (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep C'mon, Jytdog; if there is problematic, poorly-sourced content in an article like this, you should just blank it. AFDs like this are just going to be used by the "keepist" editors as a defense when they are ultimately brought to task at ANI for their own atrocious, counter-policy behaviour, and while this AFD doesn't stand a chance of accomplishing its stated goal of removing a currently-bad article from the mainspace, it does stand a fairly good chance of drawing the attention of bad editors who might try to revert any attempt to remove what problematic content is there. See the post-AFD histories of Korean influence on Japanese culture and Mottainai, both of which were also about Japanese topics that are "well-known" (or at least grossly misunderstood) to Anglo-American pop culture, for examples of this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a household name that brand. We shouldn't be nominating such well-known companies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the !votes here are very surprising to me. Remove the content sourced to spam, the content sourced to the primary medical sources and there is almost nothing left. This is a pile of dogshit on the sidewalk. If people want to write a real article on this, please do so. But I bet not a single one of the !voters here will clean up this dogshit. Nope, you will give your !vote and leave the shit here for other people to step in. OK I will pause and test that assumption by going and looking. And.... yep. Oh User:Chiswick Chap removed a couple of specks of shit. Goody for them. Shame on every one of you. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC) (strike unhelpful venting Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2018 (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) wumbolo ^^^ 08:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev

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

It seems that this article does not have reliable sources. Professor Massimo Introvigne and CESNUR sources seem to be affiliated, as Massimo Introvigne and Oleg Maltsev are partners. --Russians Don`t give up (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article should obviously be kept. If there are other sources about criticism against O.V. Maltsev they should be quoted, but there is no doubt that he is known internationally and his work has been discussed in respected academic and non-academic publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 萧剑 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems ridiculous to me. Professor Massimo Introvigne is one of the most well-known scholars in the field of religious studies and there is no evidence whatsoever that he and Oleg Maltsev are “partners.” A simple look at the “Journal of CESNUR” [79] would show that it has published articles on a wide variety of subjects, by luminaries in the field such as J. Gordon Melton and University of Bordeaux’ Bernadette Rigal-Cellard. Articles quoted from the “Journal of CESNUR” are by other authors too, including PierLuigi Zoccatelli, who is professor of Sociology of Religions at the Catholic University of Turin, Pontifical Salesian University [80] and psychologist Raffaella Di Marzio, who is the author of several books and articles. Are they all “partners” of Oleg Maltsev? The article also relies on an entry on the Applied Sciences Association, the organization founded by Maltsev, in the online encyclopedia World Religions and Spirituality Project [81]. The article is by the same Massimo Introvigne, but the World Religions and Spirituality Project is a peer-reviewed publication at Virginia Commonwealth University and certainly does not select its topics lightly. “Russians don’t give up” seem to represent the position by some Russian milieus regarding Maltsev as the leader of a “cult.” This position is obviously part of what makes Maltsev newsworthy (and studied by scholars internationally) and is mentioned and discussed in the article. User: AidaYoung —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you comment on these: 1 source, 2 source. They are also friends on Facebook. And why is it that Professor Introvigne visits Odessa at the invitation of Oleg Maltsev? We also see that Massimo Introvigne lectures people that have relation to Oleg Maltsev and his organization. Here Maltsev calls him a friend. And please don’t blame me, I am simply a Wikipedia user just the way you are.-Russians Don`t give up (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting would be a mistake. The page is balanced and includes criticism. Massimo Introvigne is a famous scholar of religion but there are other sources too. I recommend to keep the page. --Le luxembourgeois —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that other sources are sufficient to indicate the Notability. I think this is a promotional article, probably created for a price.-Russians Don`t give up (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I vote against the deletion. There are multiple scholarly sources in this article, and all are academic publications (apart from the National Geographic, which is not academic but a well-known publication as well). The sources, taken together, evidence that Maltsev is internationally studied, discussed (and criticized) in his field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma1990227 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, as the person who created the entry, I found this discussion increasingly bizarre. Simply Googling “Massimo Introvigne” would show that he has lectured, has been interviewed by, and is friend on Facebook (where he has thousands of friends) with Catholic cardinals, Protestant bishops, Buddhist monks, and founders of a dozen religious movements. This is common for sociologists of religions, whose method of work is to visit groups and interview people, as it is normal for famous scholars to be invited by different people in different countries to lecture. With Russians Don’t give up’s criteria, no article ever written by a sociologist of religion should be a reliable source for Wikipedia. It also seems that Russians Don’t give up is not familiar with how peer-reviewed scholarly publications, such as the encyclopedia World Religions and Spirituality Project and The Journal of CESNUR and other academic journals work. Even assuming that Massimo Introvigne had biases in favor of Maltsev, he should still have passed the peer review of other academics, which is much more strict and fastidious than those outside the academia may believe. Again, the article certainly relies on works by Masimo Introvigne (undoubtedly, a leading world specialist when it comes to cults), but also on international media and works by other scholars. I am just a graduate student but have made since I was in high school quite a few editing in Wikipedia and find both preposterous and offensive to be accused of creating “promotional articles for a price.” I believe that reading the article would speak for itself. On the other hand, I do not find any editing done by Russians Don’t give up. User:Aidayoung —Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my experience and research, and as confirmed by other editors above, Massimo Introvigne is a reliable scholar who produces literature that is well-respected by the community. I have seen his work being used in many other pages, and to delete this page just on the basis of one individual questioning his notability would not be just. He has written various articles that evoke intelligent and sound commentary on various subjects.Nonchalant77 (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this discussion is deviating from its original purpose. Here, we discuss whether a page on Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev should be kept. We are not discussing whether Massimo Introvigne is a good scholar or a bad scholar or is biased in favor of Maltsev. I don’t believe he is, as his articles on Maltsev also document the criticism he has received and are otherwise well written in a typically academic style, but this is, after all, immaterial. Since there is no doubt that Introvigne is a famous scholar, and that he writes for prestigious presses and journals, once he has written something about Maltsev, this something becomes part of the scientific knowledge about Maltsev and is therefore a quotable source. Criticism of Introvigne is surely legitimate but has very few to do with the question whether Maltsev (not Introvigne) is well-known internationally. That Maltsev is the subject of scholarly studies is a fact - the motivations of those who wrote these studies and their quality have presumably been checked in the peer review processes, but calling them into question now does not make Maltsev less well-known. This applies to Introvigne and to the other scholars who have written about Maltsev, and to the journals that published their articles. A very suspicious fellow may argue that all of them are “friends” of Maltsev (although in this case why they also report on criticism of him is unclear). My point is that these conspiracy theories are not the point. Whatever the motivations for scholars and journalists to write about Maltsev, or everybody else, once their articles are published, and the more so if they are published in peer-reviewed journals and Web sites, they become part of the sources generally available to the scholarly community and the public opinion, and in this case they are enough to establish the relevance of the article. Aidayoung (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why other scientists don't write about Oleg Maltsev? Basically the whole article is based on the information which comes from Massimo Introvigne. It seems to me that users: Aidayoung, Le luxembourgeois and Nonchalant77 are related to each other, they have never participated in the discussions about deletion of other pages, but they gathered here having a minimal contribution to the Wikipedia. Probably these accounts should be checked by Checkusers --Russians Don`t give up (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I am at loss to understand what exactly he is talking about. I have contributed to Wikipedia for many years and created a good number of pages, primarily in my specialized field, East Asian Religions and culture, but also in other fields related to religion. Nonetheless, the comment is interesting. Claiming that I “have a minimal contribution to Wikipedia” shows that this guy or lady is not really familiar with Wikipedia and joined for different purposes than honestly contributing to it. I have also no idea who the other users who participated in the discussion are. Checkusers by administrators are welcome. Again, it is not true that the article is based on one source only, and again the critic does not seem to understand how peer review works in academic sources Aidayoung (talk) 8:44, 25 August 2018, EST
  - "Russians Don't give up" seems to be exercising a frail attempt to discredit those who desire to keep this page and painting an image of collusion when there is none. A checkuser may be done to discredit this accusation. The argument is simply strong on the notability of Maltsev, and there are enough references to support this fact. A case in point is Mysticism, the Esoteric Paradigm and Oleg Maltsev by PierLuigi Zocatelli, who described in detail Maltsev's contribution to scholarship about the esoteric tradition. It seems to me that "Russians don't give up" is the one with the agenda to delete this page, stopping at nothing and making empty statements in order to achieve his goal.Nonchalant77 (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's stop discussing me and discuss the compliance of the article with the rules. If you remove Introvigne sources, then there will almost no article. I will check in what are other articles with professor's sources-Russians Don`t give up (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main source is affiliated. It looks like Aidayoung uses sockpuppets.--Marsellus W (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2018
- What main source? There are 37 quotes in the article, and 11 are from Massimo Introvigne, an eminent scholar who is not "affiliated" with Maltsev in any sense of the world. The others, i.e. the majority, are from respected sources other than Introvigne. It seems to me that a couple of Russian users believe that, when an author is controversial, the page should be deleted. In fact, controversies should be taken into account (as I believe I did) but a controversial author does not become less noteworthy because he or she is controversialAidayoung (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I am deadly against using sockpuppets. Aidayoung (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The sockpuppet investigation has obviously been closed quickly [82]. It was another attempt to harass people who strive to create articles based on academic sources, which for somebody seems to be a high crime here Aidayoung (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no notability. I know how scientific reviews are done. It is strange that in addition to Massimo Introvigne, no one else is particularly interested in the scientific work of Oleg Maltsev.Night of the Raven (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These users keep repeating without proving that Introvigne is the only scholar quoted while two thirds of quotes are from other sources. Interestingly the three guys who voted for the deletion have made no significant edits while those who voted against have all edited in the field of religion - and not in my specialized one Aidayoung August 31,2018 2;32 pm EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidayoung (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, valuable time was wasted in attacking the quality of the sources, while not only are they of excellent quality but they prove what those specialized in the field (and with some editings done, which does not seem to be the case for those asking for deletion...) know, i.e. that Oleg V. Maltsev leads a well-known and controversial (hence widely discussed) “new religious movement” of sort. Looking at the sources, I notice that
1. The reference list consists of 19 different items.
2. Two of the 19 items are two articles by Professor Introvigne and he is quoted (sometimes not alone) in 12 notes out of 38. This is not surprising, as he is “the” specialist of Eastern European new religious movements. His two articles have been published in peer-reviewed sources. The board overseeing “The Journal of CESNUR” reads like a Who’s Who of the most famous academics in the field [83] and the fact that Introvigne himself is one of the editors is not a valid objection, as in peer-reviewed journals the articles by the editors go through the same review as everybody else’s. The peer review process is very strict: see [84]. The other article has been published in the online encyclopedia “World Religions and Spirituality Project,” edited by Professor David G. Bromley at Virginia Commonwealth University whose rules are equally strict, see [85] and which is widely regarded as the most authoritative publication in this field. Even if the articles by Introvigne would have been biased in favor of Maltsev, the bias would have been noticed and corrected in the peer review, unless one suspects a conspiracy involving a huge number of sociologists and universities all over the world.
3. The references include two articles by Willy Fautré, a Belgian specialist of new religious movements and the president of Human Rights Without Frontiers. Note that Fautré’s first article about Maltsev was written well before the texts by Introvigne. Four quotes are by Fautré.
4. There are scholarly articles by Professor PierLuigi Zoccatelli of Pontifical Salesian University, who has not an English Wikipedia page but has one in Italian [86] and one in French [87] and one by psychologist Raffaella Di Marzio, who has also a Wikipedia page in Italian [88]. There are eight quotes by Zoccatelli and Di Marzio. That these articles have been published in a journal having Introvigne as one of the editors would not be an objection (and there are not so many specialized journals in this domain at any rate). These are well-known scholars with their own reputation to defend, not to mention that their articles went through the peer review process too.
5. One quote is to a review of articles about Maltsev in the Web site of the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism, the leading scholarly society in the field of esotericism in Europe. The review discusses the relationship between Maltsev and esotericism, obviously a matter regarded as relevant by the Society.
6. Interestingly, the author quoted Introvigne for factual elements (where Maltsev was born and educated, summary of some of his books), while Zoccatelli, Di Marzio, Fautré and the European Society were quoted for judgments and evaluations. The quotes by Introvigne do not have a valutative content, hence his alleged bias would have been neutralized at any rate.
7. The person who wrote the entry seems to be a scholar, but she did her homework in checking non-specialized media too. I would have liked more information about Maltsev’s martial arts techniques, perhaps quoting more from the National Geographic article but it looks like this is not the specialized field of the author of the entry. At any rate, five references are from magazines or newspapers. They also confirm that Maltsev is notable enough, and they are in a variety of different languages.
That the entry should be kept for me is self-evident.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are numerous serious and respected academic sources. Those calling for deletion do not seem to have valid arguments except that they do not like one particular (internationally famous) scholar who is at any rate one among several sources quoted. Maltsev is well known also for his idiosyncratic and controversial ideas about God and esotericism, recently discussed inter alia by the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism which is quoted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma1990227 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources are not about Oleg Maltsev. Willy Fautre spoke about attacks on his company but not about Oleg Maltsev himself. The article in National Geographic is about fencing, again not about Oleg Maltsev, etc. Only Massimo Introvigne wrote about Oleg Maltsev.--Russians Don`t give up (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - With all due respect, the argument seems increasingly preposterous. The Applied Sciences Association is the brainchild of Oleg Maltsev and it is impossible to discuss the Association without discussing Maltsev. His name recurs continuously in Fautré’s articles (in the article Fautré wrote in 2016 the name “Oleg Maltsev” recurs 17 times; in the second article by Fautré, it recurs 14 times), as well as in Di Marzio’s and Zoccatelli’s. Di Marzio’s article is about a movie directed by Oleg Maltsev and its title is “Oleg Maltsev and the Mythical History of Salvatore Giuliano.” Zoccatelli’s article is called “Mysticism, the Esoteric Paradigm and Oleg Maltsev.” The article in National Geographic is about Maltsev’s theories about fencing. I am not an expert of boxing but am adding a reference to Oleg Maltsev’ theories on boxing from a specialized Web site, just for the fun of it. Aidayoung (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This discussion has been running for 13 days+ now without being transcluded. I have added a {{subst:afd2}} and will delsort and transclude in today's list in a moment.
I have added multiple {{undated}}, I have bulleted most of the above posts to get some clarity, and I have bolded a few !votes. Some participants may find it worthwhile to read WP:DISCUSSAFD and append per WP:REDACT. Sam Sailor 03:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 03:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 03:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 03:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am indeed new to deletion discussions, although I have edited/created a number of articles. Thanks to User: Sam Sailor for the useful tips. Aidayoung (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Cons: 1) A scholar with no citations AFAIK (according to Google Scholar); not to be confused with the biochemist Oleg Maltsev [89] 2) not seeing any references to his work in Google Books, neither. Effectively, he is not cited in English scholars (which does not mean he is not notable, he just have no real international impact). Can't verify regional impact, since he presumably publishes in Ukrainian and I can't search in that language. 3) He doesn't seem to be affiliated with any scientific institution, at least I can't see any note/CV of him being a professor or such. My reading of his webpage suggests he is working independently, which is not a good indicator (most proper scholars work at a scientific institution). 4) The clear sockpuppet activity here is suggestive of someone with an agenda, and smells of WP:VANITY, suggesting the Wikipedia bios might be written following a direct request from the subject (but weirdly, this has been nominated by a new user too... some off wiki conflict spilling here?). I will also note that creator of this article, User:Aidayoung, also created Massimo Introvigne few years back... coincidence? Or professional association? Shrug. Pros: 1) he studies Struggacky's? That's cool [90]. But doesn't mean anything for Wikipedia's policies... just saying I appreciate it 2) two ([91], [92]) in-depth articles about him published in The Journal of CESNUR. CESNUR seems like a notable / reasonably reliable publisher, through it's journal is open source and doesn't seem to be indexed in any major international indices (I can't find it listed in SCImago Journal Rank ([93]), Social Sciences Citation Index [94], nor SCOPUS ([95]). I don't think they are a predatory journal (I can't find any proof for that), but at the very least they are a far cry from significant journal. Which calls into question how seriously they tackle the peer reviews. This is a tough call; barring other sources, all we have are two articles in a very minor journal. The subject is clearly interested in self-promotion (just look at his nice website; not that there is anything wrong with either), but given stuff like [96] it's clear he has some connections to Italy. Did the two scholars wrote articles about him because they think he is notable - or because they are doing him a favor? Hmmm. The creation of the Wikipedia article is also highly problematic. Given the super low impact of the journal, it's very hard for me to imagine how would anyone stumble upon them (but, AGF, it's not impossible). Still, I just have trouble seeing him as a s real scholar due to his zero presence on Google Scholar; something seems very fishy here - or perhaps I am not using the right searchers to find him on Google. So, either we are dealing with a major WP:SYSTEMICBIAS issue (as in, scholar whose majority of works are in other, non-Latin language) or this is a vanity spam bio. Since no other sources were presented, I am leaning towards the pessimistic ('this is a vanity promotional piece') scenario. Ping User:DGG, User:Randykitty - this is an interesting bio/AfD to review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to the last user for his very interesting comments. There is however a misunderstanding. I know next to nothing about scientists and have never written or edited articles about scientists in a long activity in Wikipedia. My main interest in Maltsev is because he operates an idiosyncratic new religious/esoteric movement that is well-known as such in several countries and is widely accused of being a cult. I have devoted more space to his ideas about God than to any “scientific” activity. In the process of researching him (and thanks also to this discussion on deletion) I have also found many references to Maltsev on specialized sites and sources about boxing and fencing, but this is not my pot of tea. I maintain that the scholars I have quoted are all widely published and with international reputation, and that their articles prove that he is discussed in different countries for his religious ideas. The bibliography of Maltsev published at [97] shows that indeed most of Maltsev’s works are published in Russian, not in English. But at any rate most are about religion/esoterica or fencing/boxing and these articles do not end up in scientific indexes. Aidayoung (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if one of the sources is affiliated, there's enough diversity of sources on the article to demonstrate WP:GNG notability. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Maltsev’s page, he is obviously notable and the article is well sourced.Nonchalant77 (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. somewhat notable, although considerably promotional. I tend to interpret notability for non-standard religious movements and their associated people very broadly, in order to avoid unconscious prejudice. The objectivity of CESNUR has been challenged in multiple directions, but it is not affiliated with this movement. There's no point going by citations--the places he publishes are not in the mainstream accessible to us, and the Cesnur articles are too new for citations. This is not going to be easy to rewrite--it poses the frequent dilemma in this field of not being important enough for an extensive article, but needing considerable space to explain his unique combination of beliefs. His views are difficult to objectively categorize, but I would personally consider his writings as pseudo-history. There is no point judging pseudo-academic work by academic standards. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to this user too. I have started improving the article by expanding the references in the section I am less familiar with, boxing and fencing, but such constructive contributions and suggestions are always welcome. I agree wholeheartedly with DGG that Maltsev would be probably not notable as a “scientist” (although he claims to be one and has a PhD in psychology). But he is notable in two fields. One is my own field (and, I understand, judging from their contributions, the field of some who expressed themselves against deletion), new religious and esoteric movements, or if you prefer “notorious cults,” although this is not the politically correct term, or at any rate characters that attract widespread attention for their “unique combinations of belief.” The other, which is not my field, is boxing and weapon handling techniques, where Maltsev seems also to have attracted considerable international attention. The scholars I quoted may be criticized for one or another reason, but one positive contribution they offered is that they tried to explain how the heck Maltsev’s beliefs about God/esotericism and boxing/criminal groups/weapon handling are related Aidayoung (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others in this discussion, my experience has been only in editing about religion and I read the article because I am interested in Maltsev's highly controversial religious ideas (with which, as a Christian, I disagree). I do not have enough knowledge to comment whether the subject is notable in boxing or weapons, although a quick search suggests a WP:NEXIST situation in the field of boxing, and other editors may be able to add additional sources. I agree that Maltsev is not notable in the field of science, but that is not what the article is about. In the field of religion, I like the comment by DGG that the structure of Maltsev's theology is grounded in "pseudo-history" and was even tempted to add the expression "pseudo-history" to the article myself, although this may be a value judgement and I wonder whether it would not violate the WP:IMPARTIAL rule, unless this qualification has been used by some scholars somewhere. At any rate, some more critical comments about Maltsev's theories of history should be sourced and quoted and would improve the article. But pseudo-theologies grounded in faulty historical theories, when they become popular enough and attract followers, seem to be generally compatible with the WP:GNG notability rule. Ultimately, I believe the article should be kept because among those studying or otherwise interested in the so called cults, or religious unhortodox movements, Maltsev is well-known enough. I do not find evidence that the main sources are affiliated or promotional. Criticism focused on Italian scholars but Fautré, for example, is not Italian, is himself well-known in the field, and started writing about Maltsev years before the Italian scholars published their articles. 萧剑 (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2018 (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) KCVelaga (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Cajuste

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

Since he has appeared in no regular or post-season games in the NFL, he has not met the notability standards for American football players established in WP:NGRIDIRON. All sources provided are trivial mentions of transactions and do not otherwise establish notability. PAVA 11 02:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. Non-notable until he plays an NFL game. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep per page views and sources below. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Getting coverage mostly due to Hard Knocks, but still had enough from earlier to pass WP:GNG [98][99][100][101][102][103].--Yankees10 03:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:11, 7 September 2018 (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.

Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON for never playing professional football and WP:NCOLLATH for failing to receive national coverage (only coverage was local to his college or hometown). SportingFlyer talk 00:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

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

Per WP:DEL6, WP:DEL7, and WP:DEL8 as essentially all sources citing the propecies are non-scholarly pro-Ahmadiyya sites and therefore, unreliable. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Serious POV concerns with the current article, in addition to the nom's concerns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If someone really wants to work on an article then they should instead start from scratch than using this POV cruft. Rzvas (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "said to have" been synthesis and trivia. As Rzvas predicted, start from scratch. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2018 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Collaborations

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

Article about an annual conference, which makes no particularly strong claim of notability beyond the fact that it exists. This is "referenced" solely to a linkfarm of external links to its own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage to get it over WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:EVENT. As always, every event that exists is not automatically entitled to use Wikipedia to promote itself -- but neither the text nor the quality of referencing are offering strong reasons why this would qualify for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published sources have been used for promoting this event and nothing more than this can be found. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major national conference going back decades - important part of Australian LGBT history. Needs cleanup, not deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep unreferenced articles just because somebody asserts that the topic is "major" and "important" — what would actually need to be shown to get this kept is that reliable source coverage actually exists for it to be cleaned up with. Media coverage about this is who has to tell us that it's "major" and "important" enough to have an encyclopedia article — an unreferenced assertion of importance is not enough all by itself, because anybody could simply say that about anything if they didn't actually have to show the sources to prove it. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources proving notability, and WP:PRIMARY seems to be violated a lot here. Potentially a violation of WP:SOAP. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete reluctantly. It is very easy to find references to this event going back over many years but they all seem to be non mainstream and-or not sufficiently independent. To me it looks like a case of systemic bias in main stream media - hence it fails on lack of WP:NEXIST to support GNG. (Not the first time WP falls victim to its own well intentioned policies.) Aoziwe (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Adefarakanmi Agbede

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

Minor African monarch (chieftain) elected in 2017. May or may not be notable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment normally a nomination for deletion must give a valid reason for deletion. As the person who moved this article to mainspace your nomination seems odd. I tagged the article during new pages review as "possibly" being non notable. The idea was to allow other users the opportunity to add sources. There is a plausible claim to notability but the sources are weak mostly puff pieces hence my tag. The deletion discussion mentioned on the talk page concerned the draft as to whether it should be deleted from draft space which is something that very rarely happens as it is an incubator. Provoking a deletion discussion because you don't agree with a maintenance tag rather than addressing the problem and improving the sourcing could be seen as disruptive. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: I don't know a lot about AfD, if this is not the right venue to debate whether the article is notable then please move the discussion to the correct place. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Frayae: Hi the first thing to do is discuss on the article's talk page the problems that another editor has raised with maintenance tags unless they are quite obviously wrong. I replaced it with an edit summary explaining why I felt there was a potential notability problem. What you can do is WP:WITHDRAW the nomination and we can discuss on the talk page if you like. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how cancelling the AfD will help if there is a notability problem. Also if I cancel the AfD it implies I think the article should be kept, which I don't. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page, not notable, possibly a fabrication. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems legitimate and there's sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources are listed in the article. They're a bit fawning, but, well, he's a monarch. --GRuban (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the article needs thorough copyediting, this is clearly notable monarch. Well covered in Nigeria's topmost reliable sources [104], [105], [106]. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2018 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Media Television

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

"Virgin Media Television (Ireland)" is the only company called "Virgin Media Television" in existence today. The former Virgin Media Television in the UK, Living TV Group, has no longer been in existence for almost eight years. As for the other two topics, Virgin Media Ireland is specified as Virgin Media Television's owner in the article, and Virgin TV can be specified with a hatnote. JE98 (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Because it's no longer named that" isn't a proper AfD rationale. This is causing no stress to the WMF servers, and it's a proper DAB page in every way. Living TV was called this at the start of en.wiki's existence, and the point of DAB pages is to leave crumbs to where pages has been in the past. I would also oppose lobbing on (disambiguation) to the title as adding needless letters to it. Nate • (chatter) 18:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the entries are even called Virgin Media Television except for Virgin Media Television (Ireland). Currently, the dab page fails MOS:DABNOENTRY. If indeed Living TV Group was called that at one point, a hatnote should be enough per WP:ONEOTHER. --Gonnym (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is another entry: Virgin Media Television (2007–10), which was the WP:primary topic prior to its 13 July 2010 move to Living TV Group. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really a valid entry for two reason. First, that article name does not comply with any naming guideline; and second, the name changed and per WP:NAMECHANGES that's a valid change for an article name change. If there are no other titles using the SAME NAME (and this isn't even mentioning a thing like WP:SMALLDETAILS which would allow the same name with different caps), then there is a clear primary topic (by merit of being the only topic), but even if this were a valid entry then per WP:ONEOTHER there is still no need for a disambiguation page and a hatnote should be enough. --Gonnym (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what you're saying is that THIS was a fake website and there was never an entity that called itself "Virgin Media Television" in the UK, and the Republic of Ireland is the only country in the world that has ever had a thing called "Virgin Media Television"? wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The hatnote on Virgin TV is painful to read, and really should just be an {{other uses}} to this disambiguation. wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - To me the brand name "Virgin (Media) TV", with or without "Media", whether "Television" or "TV", is very ambiguous and doesn't clearly indicate whether it is a network, channel, or cable service. wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that the link you presented including the parenthesis is not a valid article title name based on relevant naming convention guidelines. I was also saying, that a past name that isn't even used as the current title for the article, is not a valid argument for blocking the only article using said title as its primary topic. As for what the hatnote says, I really don't care, as I wasn't the one who wrote it, but based on WP:ONEOTHER a hatnote should be enough and it does not merit a disambiguation page. I'll even add, that even if it did warrant one (which again, I don't agree), then the primary topic should still not be it, and it should be "Virgin Media Television (disambiguation)" - basically, anyway you slice this, there are no valid reasons for the current setup. As for your final point, I have no idea what you are referring to, so I can't comment on that. --Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - So what would be the best name for Virgin Media Television (2007–10)? Virgin Media Television (television programme production arm of Virgin Media)? Living TV Group had a number of wholly owned channels, available in the United Kingdom on Digital terrestrial television, Satellite television and Cable television platforms and in the Republic of Ireland... so were Virgin Media Television (2007–10) programmes offered in Ireland? In which case we need disambiguation to distinguish "Virgin Media Television (Irish TV network)" from "Virgin Media Television (producer of television programmes seen in Ireland)". wbm1058 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure what the name is, as WP:NCCORP doesn't give information on what to do. Current practice on most articles is just to add the country name so "Virgin Media Television (UK)", however again, why would you need to? It's a redirect, just live it be. Living TV Group's article name is not being debated here so again, there is no issue. And for your secondary question, we don't need to, as we don't go by the country in which that company might work, but where the company is located. Disney is not an Irish company because it might work in Ireland, however, if Disney has a local channel somewhere, that's a different thing, see Disney XD (Dutch TV channel). So if this discussion was about a channel or network operating in Ireland that would be one thing, but this is about a company operating in the UK and has a totally different name. --Gonnym (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid dab page with four good entries, with two obvious entries and two that can reasonably be inferred to pass MOS:DABNOENTRY. The question of if there is a primary topic is properly discussed via a WP:RM, not here. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 09:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a redirect/merge at worst and should be discussed on the talk page not here. Szzuk (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phronemophobia

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

No proper medical sources can be found for this term, only fun-with-Greek web lists and dubious health sites. ... discospinster _talk 01:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:RS and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Shushugah (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had moved a previous identical version of this page to the draftspace because of the poor sourcing, but the editor recreated it anyway. Fram (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per Fram's account. Not properly verifiable. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The present sources do not help the article pass WP:Notability. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources aren't useful in verifying this medical term. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I feel that it can be merged and redirected to List of phobias per the coverage it has in the books and media.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ Colman, Andrew M. (26 February 2009). "A Dictionary of Psychology". OUP Oxford – via Google Books.
^ Corsini, Ray (5 December 2016). "The Dictionary of Psychology". Routledge – via Google Books.
^ Burns, Elizabeth; Korn, Kenneth; IV, James Whyte (3 June 2011). "Oxford American Handbook of Clinical Examination and Practical Skills". Oxford University Press – via Google Books.
^ Austen, Catherine (1 October 2009). "Walking Backward". Orca Book Publishers – via Google Books.
^ Giles, Doug (5 June 2007). "10 Habits of Decidedly Defective People: The Successful Loser's Guide to Life". Revell – via Google Books.

requesting a relist since the suggestion to merge came in at the last day of AfD. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another "said to have" essay. Bearian (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Powerline.io

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

Does not satisfy software notability or game notability. The references are not independent. The page says nothing about what others have written, and so does not establish independent notability. The discussion of the developer is purely promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:RS, and WP:GNG. The WP:PROMO is an issue that is often fixable, but it is the meat of this article in its current state. Shushugah (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph or two in one work does not notability make. Delete. --Izno (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On an aside, this sounds like "Worm Wars", which was a map set for Warcraft III. I've been wondering if such games exist. --Izno (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:Notability and fails to pass WP:RS. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couple of passing mentions exists but that's it. Capitals00 (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Colman, Andrew M. (26 February 2009). "A Dictionary of Psychology". OUP Oxford – via Google Books.

[2] Corsini, Ray (5 December 2016). "The Dictionary of Psychology". Routledge – via Google Books.

[3] Burns, Elizabeth; Korn, Kenneth; IV, James Whyte (3 June 2011). "Oxford American Handbook of Clinical Examination and Practical Skills". Oxford University Press – via Google Books.

[4] Austen, Catherine (1 October 2009). "Walking Backward". Orca Book Publishers – via Google Books.

[5] Giles, Doug (5 June 2007). "10 Habits of Decidedly Defective People: The Successful Loser's Guide to Life". Revell – via Google Books.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]