Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 3

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 close. Malformed, duplicate Afd. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nternational Journal of Mental Health Systems

Nternational Journal of Mental Health Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason Boxoffice11 (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Richard Cookson

Thomas Richard Cookson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails the professor test, was created by blocked Bonkers The Clown (talk · contribs), who has created dozens of non-articles. --Zinghong (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Doesn't appear to meet WP:TEACHER or indeed WP:GNG. None of the references in the article support notability (Indeed most are dead, are barely trivial mentions, or are otherwise unrelated to the subject. For example, how does a book published in 1907 support the statement that the subject was a headmaster 100 years later? Was that book written perhaps by Nostradamus?) Guliolopez (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Headmasters of major schools (and Winchester is one) can be notable, Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC),[reply]
• Delete A headmaster CAN be notable, but being a headmaster of a major school doesn't automatically make you notable by itself. Without any sources that aren't simply reporting that "this is the headmaster of this school", he's not notable, and that's what we have here. CrispyGlover (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While a headmaster can be notable, this one does not appear to be. He doesn't meet the WP:GNG bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Lincolnite (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Directorate of Economic Intelligence

Directorate of Economic Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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. " It was deprodded by User:Kontrola (creator) with the following rationale "additional info". The additional info added was just some copyediting for interlinks, etc. The article still lacks sources that would show that the company is notable. There are no mentions in press or books about it, and even the crappy metric of Google Hits is <1000 when looking for Polish name. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Topic does not appear to be notable. References fail WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:GNG and as per nom. Xaxing (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: An article on a Polish firm, whose article on the Polish Wikipedia was deleted after a similar AfD in November 2015. AllyD (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article on a company whose text and references do not establish its encyclopaedic notability. Nor do my searches (on the English name, which is shared with other concerns, and the more likely Polish name) identify anything to suggest more than a company going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mifter (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LouišP Ltd

LouišP Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Business-directory listing. No sign -- or references to -- any notability. Calton | Talk 23:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Topic does not appear notable. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable WP:CORPDEPTH.No evidence.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. John Wilder

C. John Wilder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Standard "About us" biography/CV from bog-standard executive. Nothing but puffery. Calton | Talk 23:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm torn about this one. On the one hand there is news coverage, not huge amounts, but it's there: see [1]. On the other hand, this is obviously a puff-piece intending to promote; and remains so despite my throwing out a fair bit of the fluff. I'm leaning delete, but uncertain. Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam, and notability is not inherited. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clear advertising including the PR awards "Best in so-and-so and in so-and-so". SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clear WP:COI and failure to establish independent notability. DrStrauss talk 22:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  08:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hunter-Clarke

Robin Hunter-Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Was previously deleted in 2011 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Hunter-Clarke). Was a minor local politician then; has since been a failed parliamentary candidate and become party functionary. Nothing since to indicate notability achieved. I strongly suspect self-promotion. Emeraude (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that UKIP is a party that many people JUSTDONTLIKE (I know, I JUSTDONTLIKE UKIP) I heard of Hunter-Clarke today for the first time while going through articles at AFD. I searched, found a lot of stuff already on the page, and it is pretty clear that the page was created by a UKIP enthusiast. However, I do know a thing or two about politics, and everything I read seemed to flag him as something of a rising star in the UKIP, making the impression given by the Nom that this is an article an article about a "failed candidate" now reduced to a mere "party functionary" seem, well, unduly POV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  Sources available in the article show WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as we base these articles in WP:POLITICIAN and his current position isn't satisfying it considering he's simply the "Chief of Staff", and his other positions have been minor, and that's unsurprising. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia's notability is defined at WP:N, not at WP:POLITICIAN.  This shows that SNGs are co-equal with WP:GNG, such that there are alternate paths to notability.  This article is no more based on WP:POLITICIAN than it is on WP:PROF.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong and absurd. What does WP:PROF have to do with anything at all? AusLondonder (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Young politician appropriately deleted in 2011. Now, however, his numbers at the polls (impressive, albeit not enough to win him a seat), his job coordinating UKIP participation in Vote Leave (Brexit) and, most recently, his job as UK Independence Party Chief of Staff in the National Assembly for Wales, have made him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Revisiting, I can see that I was unclear. What I intended to say was that the jobs he has had and positions he has run for have "made him notable" because of the unusual amount of local, regional, and national coverage he has attracted. Much of it substantive and including interviews and profiles that go far beyond routine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We require significant in-depth coverage. This individual has received a passing mention here and there in a local newspaper. AusLondonder (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "passing mention" is defined at WP:CORP as "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:GNG accepts local sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Inaccurate characterization of the news coverage; in fact, Hunter-Clarke's career has been covered both in passing and in depth by national papers (as well as by local and regional ones) beginning with coverage of his unusually young age when first elected to city council, and when first running for parliament. Coverage that has been ongoing. Here: [2] for example, is a search of his name on BBC.com. Let's try to keep alternative facts out of these discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Thanks for that because the BBC sources simply serve to prove my point. The only article with him in the headline relates to his selection as a candidate for an election which he lost - that is not absolutely not acceptable sourcing per WP:NPOL. The others are purely passing trivial mentions, such as this one, on the BBC Lincolnshire local site, titled "BNP candidate Reverend Robert West told pupils Muslims 'worship devil'". This article is about some loony-tune candidate standing for the same constituency Hunter-Clarke stood for. Clarke-Hunter is mentioned at the bottom in a list of candidates. The second article produced by your search is BBC Lincolnshire Live Thursday 10 November 2016. Hunter-Clarke gets a trivial mention again "A councillor who said he would stand for UKIP in the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election has announced he is pulling out of the contest. Robin Hunter-Clarke, who's a Lincolnshire County Councillor and works for UKIP in the Welsh Assembly, is thought to be making way for Suzanne Evans, who's also bidding to be UKIP's next leader". AusLondonder (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your assertion was that he was covered "here and there in a local newspaper" which misleads other editors by giving the impression that you searched - or at least looked at sourcing in the article - and are describing what you found. It is an inaccurate description, since you do not even accurately describe the sources already in the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As pertains to the BBC, Note that source #5 in the article is this 2003 [3] BBC interview (on a BBC talk show). Moreover, coverage like this [4] 2014 BBC article ("Boston and Skegness UKIP vote: Robin Hunter-Clarke named as candidate") can hardly be dismissed as "trivial" although, of course, as with all active politicians, Hunter-Clarrk will also come up in searches where he is merely mentioned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, scanning a news archive, I just noticed this 2012 story about an interview on BBC 1 "Skegness's youngest ever councillor talks politics on BBC Radio One's Newsbeat" [5]. This is NOT the same as the interview I mentioned above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Returning to your assertion that local coverage is limited to "passing mentions", Note that a quick news produces in-depth coverage such as "Robin, 21, lands one of biggest roles in UKIP" in the regional weekly, Lincolnshire Echo 2014 [6]. And more similar in regional and local papers "Young UKIP councillor eyes spot on national committee" (2013); "Former Boston and Skegness UKIP candidate takes up new post" (2016); "Youngest Tory councilor jumps ship to join UKIP" (2012). And more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note also, this 900 word profile/interview in The Independent. "'You hear that we need to get young people involved in politics - well here I am'" (Paul Gallagher, [7], 13 December 2014).E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And then there is stuff like the coverage of him in 3 paragraphs in The Times Feb. 2016 post-game analysis of why UKIP lost so badly at the polls [8]. Does he have a future in politics? Does UKIP? Who knows. My point is only that even a quick scan of the first page of a Proquest News Archive search (no single search ever finds everything) established that his political career got more than sufficient national, regional and local coverage to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Does he have a future in politics? ...Who knows."? Well, precisely. And when he has he gets an article, until then no. Emeraude (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm persuaded this passes GNG by a detailed profile in The Independent, a BBC article specifically about his candidacy in a Parliamentary by-election, while the range of other reliable sources, many of which provide brief mentions or are very local publications, are used appropriately to provide extra detail in the article. Warofdreams talk 15:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that he wasn't the candidate in the Parliamentary by-election..... Emeraude (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant general election, not by-election. Clearly doesn't affect the argument. Warofdreams talk 22:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does - being a failed candidate does not mean notability so he does not qualify for an article on those grounds, unless there is something else that gives it. There isn't. Emeraude (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not WP:BLUDGEON this discussion to death.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, this article is sourced to multiple, in-depth profiles and interviews in major British media that were published over the course of several years and are by no means WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage. It passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient reliable and in-depth coverage exists to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepDon't see why someone is trying to delete this page, admins should be politically unbiased when making decisions to delete pages.Baconmanz (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2017 (GMT)
• CommentRecommended that author of this page also looks into Pete Durnell to add any other sources he may think viable.Baconmanz (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2017 (GMT)
• Keep The GNG has been met. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Playspace

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

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

One consultant's promotional concept. The only bits not sourced TO said consultant Pamela Meyer Ph.D don't talk about this. Calton | Talk 23:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. She did publish a book and two academic articles about it, through the impact is not breathtaking (12 citations to the article from 2012). She spoke about this at TEDxsomething_small... and I don't see any better refs. So far seems too much based on WP:PRIMARY, and with not enough WP:N, to be encyclopedic. Maybe in few years when this idea actually gets some traction? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Piotrus. I do not see sufficient evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mifter (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Meyer Ph.D

Pamela Meyer Ph.D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Standard entrepreneurial CV, with standard promotional refs. Calton | Talk 23:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional guff - I always take the inclusion of PR-speak in an article to be a sure indication that there's not going to be a lot of independent coverage for something - and a search I just carried out has confirmed that in this case. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional, clearly. Coverage seems niche/PR-like. No Google Scholar profile, but her Playspace article from 2012 has 12 cites, which hardly qualifies for major impact, so no WP:PROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as promotional, but there may be some notability here and an editor without coi might want to try to write an article. One of here books is indeed in 940 libraries, which usually does indicate notability as either AUTHOR or possibly PROF. But NOT PROMOTION is an over-riding concern. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional. Vanamonde (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CV spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Aside from somehow getting a promotional profile of herself published in the Chicago Tribune, there is nothing here that demonstrates or suggests academic or general notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously promotional page.Not found evidence.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW. This page is very poorly sourced, despite the wall of self-selected/produced cites. We are not a resume website. I'd be willing to let it slide, as I do sometimes, if there were any evidence of notability or serious publications. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Seems to be another example of people styled "PhD", "Dr", or "Professor" being so often deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• And your point being...? --Calton | Talk 00:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hubris. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasuni

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

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

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage cannot be found. The award listed is not significant and well known.

The prior AfD closed as no consensus. I still considered the article to be promotional as citing to The Register and containing promo language on "proprietary technology"; "publishes an annual report on cloud providers" (nothing remarkable about this, just self-promotion); etc. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. All of this suggests that's it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article passes WP:ORG - deletion should only be used when an article is at a point where it cannot be improved to comply to Wikipedia standards. This article can certainly be improved, and in lieu of deletion this article should be tagged and improved as opposed to abandoned. Garchy (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- the above keep vote does not specify how the subject passes ORG or which of the sources provide WP:SIGCOV, which I don't see in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply -- Fortune, Forbes, and The Register are just a few that I've found that are WP:RS. There has been plenty of coverage on the company - instead of writing everything here I implore you to hit the "find sources --> news" section above and you will find enough WP:SIGCOV for at least a stub page for this company. I'm adding it into the Nasuni article now, as improving the article is more efficient than debating its deletion. Garchy (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 Please list the sources here. We have found over the years at AfD that many articles published in Forbes (for example) are PR and therefore do not meet the criteria in WP:RS. Same with Fortune and The Register. Most are "interviews" or "the company announced" type articles (which are not intellectually independent and therefore are not regarded as reliable for the purposes of establishing notability). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up As expected, I've reviewed the sources and they're all the same PR advertorials that are not independent and are really just PR.

1. The first Forbes article is entitled "A Series of Forbes Insights Profiles of Thought Leaders Changing the Business Landscape: Andres Rodriguez, Founder and CEO, Nasuni" and is really a classic PR "interview" advertorial. Fails WP:RS as it is not "independent".
2. The Fortune article fails WP:RS for the same reasons - it is not independent and is an interview style advertorial
3. The first Register article fails WP:RS as ... it is an interview with the CEO over why his co-founder left the company
4. The second Register article fails WP:RS as it only mentions the company in passing
5. The StorageReview review could be acceptable as a review of their product so long as the publisher is an independent third party. Unfortunately I don't know but I note that on their website they state that they are independent and it seems fair enough.
6. The ESG Lab Validation could be acceptable as a review of their product although I suspect that Nasuni paid for it
7. The second Forbes articles fails for the same reason as the first. It's really an ad.
8. The third Register article fails because it is not independent as they are essentially using quotes from the CEO and the company to provide the data and facts
9. The techtarget article starts well but then devotes the entire last section to the VP of product strategy, therefore not independent.
10. The infostor article appears to be independent and is using various analyst reports (as well as a Nasuni report) for their analysis. This also might be acceptable even allowing for the various quotes. Another opinion required.
11. The fourth Register article is another thinly disguised advertorial for Nasuni to tempt readers to register (on Nasuni's website) and download a Nasuni report
12. The arstechnica report is really a Nasuni report. Fails WP:RS as it is not independent.
13. Same report, different publication (fortune), same failure. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 23:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "The ESG Lab Validation" is about 99% certain to be a paid for test / review. Analyst reports are generally considered to be self-published sources anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Agreed that not every source provided is great - however, I do think this article can be improved to a point where deletion is not required - some of the sources provided are debatable as to whether they are RS or not - I will go through in more depth what you've provided above later, but at quick glance the TechTarget article with the VP section is not really "devoted" to him - it looks like regular press reporting. I'm not refuting that this article needs work for RS and PROMO - but to delete when there is clearly reliable press coverage (amongst the fluff) seems irresponsible to me. Garchy (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Sources provided are not independent third party that meet WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note -- the article has been created and extensively edited by Special:Contributions/Exdejesus with few other contributions. The editor also engaged in promotional editing on other articles such as Pet Lovers Centre. So I believe that maintaining neutrality of this article would be an on-going concern. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Same rationale as in the previous AfD. Pavlor (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Corporate spam and written to build online PR, references are poor and typically promotional in nature. Light2021 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Before being blocked for two months at 20:36, this editor made, including the !vote here, the following six !votes.  Note that the timespan of these !votes is six minutes.

• MultiTail

• Delete as per above analysis. not important as per wiki standards. Light2021 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nasuni (2nd nomination)

• Delete Corporate spam and written to build online PR, references are poor and typically promotional in nature. Light2021 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Enantra

• Delete non notable encyclopedia material. Light2021 (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Zinaps AntiSpyware 2008

• Delete Corporate Spam and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Prabhat View Kindergarten

• Delete As per above Light2021 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Paymatrix

• Delete As per above. As it is clear that this is going to be Corporate spam. Light2021 (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  This is a late-stage startup with a recent three-week AfD.  Since the close of the last AfD, this company received attention for a new round of financing.  In addition to this finance coverage in December, there are three articles and two smaller mentions at Google news within the past week.  Editors may reasonably challenge their depth, but they each add significant coverage to a topic the community accepts or at least doesn't reject.  Any remaining doubt IMO is decided by the existence of coverage at Google books and Google scholar.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clear advertising aloneBethNaught — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyufg (talk • contribs) 01:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note -- Above account has made only one edit, seems to clearly be a single purpose account. Garchy (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Struck the above comment. The user who posted this, Qwertyufg, was blocked for impersonation of another user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clear advertising alone and "this [starting] company received attention for a new round of funding" exactly violates WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT as it's simply trivial business announcing, worse if the only defense to it is "It's from last month and there are articles about it" as it's still non-negotiable in our policies. What stays solid here is our policy WP:NOT because of the fact it's not interchangeable with anything else (Wikipedia is not advertising is one of the encyclopedia pillars), and the current sources are all in fact either published or republished PR, emphasizing that's the only attention here, including if the company motivated it. "Editors may reasonably challenge their depth" is exactly what happens here and especially for such clear company campaigning. WP:ORG has never been policy because it's a suggestively-focused guideline that compliments the other company suggestions, but it's never been a fact-policy. Current sources:
• From their 1st company quarter in 2014
• From their 1st company quarter in 2015
• business announcement after their quarter
• same
• 1st company quarter again, but a republished announcement with a clear label
• one of their later company quarters
• same, but in a different year
• same as earlier
• same as earlier, but after quarter
• same as earlier, conveniently after a quarter
• quarter-nearby announcement
• business announcement
• None of this in fact amounts to substance because it's simply trivial.

SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Substance" is not a policy-based word.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• None of these sources is trivial in the meaning intended by the guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If the advertising is clear, the advertising needs to be identified as per our policy WP:NOTADVERTISING and removed.  As a surmountable problem, this does not affect AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• You've quoted me as saying, "this [starting] company received attention for a new round of funding".  But a "starting" company is not the same thing as a "late-stage start-up" company.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not aware that there is such a thing as a "violation" of CORPDEPTH.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding, " 'this...company received attention for a new round of funding' exactly violates WP:CORPDEPTH...as it's simply trivial business announcing", I took a look at CORPDEPTH.  I see no relation to anything in CORPDEPTH, much less "exactly".  Here seem to be the closest points from WP:CORPDEPTH:

• sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
• the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,
• brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
• simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
• routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
• routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,

Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding, " 'this...company received attention for a new round of funding' exactly violates...WP:NOT...as it's simply trivial business announcing", I took at look at WP:NOT.  I found only one use of the word "trivial", where it says, "Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC before isolation in the laboratory, provided that scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties."  So the claim that there is an exact statement in WP:NOT cannot be confirmed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• A claim that a topic is not notable can't just look in the article and make vague waves about other sources.  Due diligence requires evidence of absence, not an absence of evidence.  At the previous AfD, there was no consensus that the topic was not notable.  Any doubt that these sources are sufficient is defined at CORPDEPTH as the material to write more than a "very brief" stub article, which we have had.  Since the last AfD, I've identified seven new articles at Google news, which continue to contribute to notability over and above any bare minimum.  These are not articles about company phone numbers.  We are talking about research done by reporters asking questions and gathering information.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• As for WP:NOT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY only leads to deletion if the problem cannot be fixed by editing.  WP:ATD is also a policy and says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  You've come up with a new claim that "Wikipedia is not advertising" is a pillar, but I'm unable to verify your claim.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Quote without comment: "the current sources are all in fact either published or republished PR, ...such clear company campaigning."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Quadrophenia. czar 20:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Am The Sea

I Am The Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article claims that this was a single released by The Who, but there are no references to back this up, and this reliable source suggests it was only ever a track on "Quadrophenia". Together with the lack of reliable sources actually about the track itself, this is not a notable song per WP:NSONGS. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not especially concerned whether this song-article is kept, deleted, or merged-and-redirected to Quadrophenia, but I am troubled that it appears to lead off with a false statement. I will ask the article-creator to clarify ... @UNSC Luke 1021: Can you please let us know where you obtained the information that the song "was released [presumably meaning as a single] without a B-side to accompany it", or else clarify what you meant by that sentence. Thanks. I also notice that I Am the Sea (note small "t") is already a redirect to Quadrophenia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: My father owns a ton of Who albums and as far as I can tell there is no B-side. I've also Googled it and nothing comes up, which leads me to believe that this song was not recorded with a B-side. Many other songs on the album Quadrophenia were without B-sides, including but not limited to "Drowned", "Cut My Hair", "The Punk and The Godfather", "Sea and Sand" and "Bell Boy", so it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that this song has no B-side, due to a lack of evidence and a consistency throughout the album. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@UNSC Luke 1021: Thanks for the reply, but the real question is, is there evidence that "I Am the Sea" or the other songs you've just listed were "released"—meaning as singles, separately from the album—at all? A given album might have 15 songs on it, with only 3 or 4 being released as singles. For example, our Quadrophenia article lists singles for 3 songs but not the others.) By saying that "I Am the Sea" was released "without a B-side," we are saying that the song was released as an "A-side", that is, as a single, as opposed to just being included on the album. (Incidentally, it is very unlikely that a song like this would be released as an "A-side only," for reasons that were easier to explain before the whole world went digital.) I hope this clarifies what I'm asking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I've already been informed that it was simply a track and not a single, so I'll remoe that little bit of information. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@UNSC Luke 1021: I've got most of The Who's original output on vinyl and have had for several decades, and read several biographies back to front until the paper is worn from thumb marks (including Dave Marsh's "Before I get Old", Tony Fletcher's "Dear Boy, The Life of Keith Moon", Andrew Neill and Matt Kent's "Anyway Anyhow Anywhere" and John Atkins' "The Who on Record") and taken quite a few Who related articles to GA (not least the main one on the band itself). While obviously WP:OWN still applies, I am pretty sure that if your unsourced claim was true, I'd have read about it somewhere. Perhaps it was released on promotional teasers to radio stations (where there is nothing unusual about having a one-sided bit of vinyl), but without any sort of reliable source, we can't put that information in the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I doubt that this was ever a single, but I consider that irrelevant. It's the opening track of Quadrophenia, a major work of UK rock history, not just important within The Who's own work. This track stands out from almost everything else on the album, and even the rest of the Who's work. Just from its production alone, it's a significant step in Townshend's working style (no windmills here!). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Quadrophenia. Fails WP:NSONGS. The song serves as an introduction to the rest of the album, and is best discussed in the context of the album as a whole. It does not have notability as an individual song.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Quadrophenia per WP:NSONGS, and for homework consider having a similar debate about "Speak to Me". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the song has clearly entered a lexicography beyond merely that of 'popular' music. And specifically for our purposes, it passes WP:NSONG, as it has been the subject ('non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment') of multiple ('plenty' suffices here) non-trivial (philosphical?) sources. And since these sources pass WP:DEPTH and provide significicant, third party coverage, WP:GNG is passed also. Worth noting in passing that to redirect to Quadrophenia would endow this song with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in that article. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 10:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That "Who and Philosophy" source looks like one man's rambling opinion, without any evidence it's actually factually correct. Mark Wilkerson's book is a self-published source that contradicts more official biographies and lumps in far too much guesswork to be considered a reliable source. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well; if one is prepared to make cracks about 'homework' one should probably be prepared to do it. What you say on the Wilkerson book sounds very much like an opinion, and there's not much indication that Omnibus Press is a self-publishing house. It is a specialist publishing house, however. Perhaps WP:RSN is the place to be?

Re: philosophy. As for 'one mans's rambling opinion' (an irony to be remarked upon no further!), even the 'sources' section- that you added- show there to be two authors involved: Gennaro, Rocco J, and Harison, Casey. Rocco is professor of Philosophy, and Harison a Faculty Member at the University of Southern Indiana. Other contributors are Dr G. Littmann, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, and prof. Scot Calef, Ohio Wesleyan University. And with many more besides! it being an academic treatment. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• sock strike Keep This song is opening track of an album which is considered to be one of the most important records of rock history. Based on its popularity it deserve it own article. The article also has enough coverage from reliable sources ChargerHellcat (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Quadrophenia as specified above. Being the opening track is irrelevant if there are no sources that discuss why the track itself is important, and the sources provided are unimpressive. The book by Gennaro et al spends about a paragraph on this track, which is pretty much routine in a book that dives deep into the band. The book by Atkins is similar, briefly describing the song but certainly not in a way that makes it notable compared to the rest of the Who canon. Definitely a plausible search term and I wouldn't object to a brief analysis of the song in the article about the album, but not a notable stand-alone topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect I don't have anywhere near Ritchie's knowledge of The Who, but I've known their music for a while, and I know of no reason why the song needs a standalone article: and nothing in the article justifies this, either. Vanamonde (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommending Close from an outside administrator. I have nothing to refute what the people who voted 'redirect' have to say. I'd prefer it be kept as a standalone article but redirecting is in the best interest of the community. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is already a redirect at the correct capitalisation, I am the Sea. If there is a consensus the article should remain, then it should be at the correct capitalisation in any event. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richhoncho: Presumably, you meant to Comment rather than delete? After all, an incorrect page title is not a qualification for deletion, and as you say, it can be moved. In fact, being WP:BOLD, I will do so. Thanks for the pointer! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 20:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:. No I meant delete. There is no advantage of having millions of redirects as a result of miscapitalization. If the article is deleted, then the incorrect capitalization will have to be repointed. If the article is kept then there is no reason to keep the incorrect capitalization (subject to correct history merge). Your action was premature and unnecessary. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not be disingenuous: we are not discussing a redirect's deletetion, but an article's. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:. Because of your move this discussion should now be at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, because it is no longer an article. I think you need to reconsider who is being 'disingenuous.' --Richhoncho (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:. You also moved it to the wrong capitalization. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well, but I didn't move the page as it would have left us with two pages with the same content. I'm not able to delete pages and I'm not good at moving either. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Spotify this is how it is capitalized (see below the album art). I'm pretty sure it was correct from the beginning. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@UNSC Luke 1021:. Spotify has its house style, as does Wikipedia, please check Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Hicks

Randall Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

unashamed promotional vanity article from COI/SPA. numerous primary sources. no real RSes. some coverage in an esoteric publication (perhaps user contributed?) but run of the mill legal text - reports on cases and not what can be considered reliable, independent and significant. Rayman60 (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a wikipedia experienced user like the person who made the comments above and I don't even know what all those acronyms mean (COI/SPA et cetera). So I can only respond as a normal person who occasionally uses Wikiepedia and feel somewhat bullied in the objection to my article. I work in the adoption field so am very aware of Randall Hicks and how big he is in the field. First about his worthiness as a lawyer. One of the criticisms above is "reports on cases and not what can be considered erliable, independent and significant." Actually, the citations I provided (law.justia.com) is the leading online reporter of published legal cases for the public to use. It is the first source almost always on Google. And if a person takes the time to go to each linked case, you will see Randall Hicks listed at the very start as the attorney of record for the prevailing party. And simply the fact they are "published" cases, shows their significance as setting precedent. Less than one percent of all cases are selected for publication. I added a New York Times link to an article on adoption quoting Randall Hicks and mentioning his book. Also, he is one of the bestselling adoption authors of "how to" adoption books. I added reviews of them from the two largest review entities in the world: Publishers Weekly and Library Journal. Sorry if I should have done this before, but I didn't think it was necessary. I'm likely not the best Wikipedia writer, but I did my best. So I don't think anyone can argue Randall Hicks is one of the leading attorneys in his field. As a writer, he not only has many books on the subject of adoption in both fiction and non-fiction, they are successful, well-reviewed and award-winning. The person proposing deletion seems to riducule the awards, which I don't understand. Every award Randall Hicks won, or was a finalist for, has a long-standing article page of its own on Wikipedia. For those in the mystery fiction world, the Anthony, Barry, Macavity and Gumshoe are significant awards. I also added a link for a book review for his most recent book on Step Parenting, which was not just reviewed by Library Journal, but gave it a rare "starred" review. The criticism above also seems to indicate links are only to Randall Hicks. I don't understand this criticism. Included in the sources were major print or web pubications. I did cite his own website, as it was hard to get personal information otherwise, but in looking at other author Wikipedia pages, they all seemed to do that, so I followed that template so to speak. I can take that out I guess. I'm not even sure if this is the correct place to make this response. Thanks for your assistance in getting the article right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment: the above statement comes from the creator of the article whose only contribution has been on this article (other than putting Randall's name in an adoption related article about 5 years ago) Rayman60 (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC

Well, I'm responding again to you Rayman60, trying to do my best here, but feeling even more attacked, like I'm not one of the popular kids of Wikipedia, just someone wanting to add people and facts who are significant and of interest. I didn't plan to spend so much time on this, but now you have me feeling defensive and I feel like I have to improve the artice or "be rejected" which is hurtful. First off, there was something about me having a tie to the article person (Randall Hicks). If that matters, my only connection is I work in the adoption field, and he is pretty famous in that area. I saw him speak at a conference and had his sign one of his books. That does not make me biased, just interesed in my field, and by extension, him. Your second comment does not address the points I made. There in nothing "unabashedly vain" or whatever you said. He is a well known attorney and I cited his cases. He is a popular adoption author and I cited his books. He was an actor and I cited his roles. The sources are the New York Times, Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, San Diego Union Tribune, IMDb and the leading legal case reporter cite, law.justica. Yet you say they are not valid. I did make some changes. I had only cited RandallHicks.com for his film roles, but I changed it to the official cite of IMDb, which also turned up another role I didn't have, and I deleted one they did not have. Lastly, about your comment on the fact I've contributed little, I think I did several additions in adoption subjects years ago, but really can't recall. Not that I see that as relevant as I'm trying to contribute now. Thanks.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Rayman60, I think I have made the final edit which I hope meets your satisfaction. I added a legal citation. I am confused, however, why you initially found fault with the article, and why you have not withdrawn your proposal for deletion. I'm not sure how the process works. It's funny in that before I wrote this article, my first, I checked three other authors I like a lot and was going to write an article for one or more of them, thinking they were significant enough for a page, but not so well known that maybe they didn't have one yet. It turns out they all did. But here's why I even mention it. The three authors I thought I'd write about were: David Rosenfelt, Tim Dorsey and Barbara Seranella. And as far as references/sources go for all three of them, they all have either one, or no, references, other than their own website of similar entity. Yet you find fault with mine with not just many, but major sources, and actually criticize them. I can understand rejecting articles if someone is trying to "look big" when they have no widespread appeal, like someone's garage band or something. But I chose someone who is one of the most significant attorneys in his field with likely the most books on the subject. Separate from that is his success as an author, and evidently an actor too with his imdb listings. I will try to message you directly about why you feel this is someone's vanity piece as there is not a single complimentary adjective or anything like that - just facts about cases, books, and roles, and some basic personal info that is why I personally even look people up. Anyway, since I'm not a knowlegable Wikipedia user, I may fail at trying to message you directly, and if I do and you see this instead, I hope you will feel you can stop your sought-after deletion. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only potential vehicle for notability for subject is his authorship. If the page is to survive, it would have to be recast featuring that aspect and moving all the adoption lawyering to a small byline. The books look marginal, too. How-to guides are not going to be good enough, so if that's all they are, the page has to go. sirlanz 22:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sirlanz. Thanks for something constructive. I'm learning as I go and looked at it as a school research project: the more info the better. But that appears to not be what is wanted. I looked up other lawyers who were known in other fields, and tried to combine that with authors, as Randall Hicks is both. I will not go to the article and remove the legal information. Gelo962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.27.12 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Nothing against Randall, but this article does not establish notability for the subject, either as a lawyer or author. 1292simon (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note to the Talk page. Gelo962 has clearly done their best to improve the page in a clearly good faith manner (all credit there) but subject simply falls well short. sirlanz 04:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to argue for my article. Now there are comments Hicks is not notable in his field, which is the threshold for the article being accepted. But previously I put the many sources of his fame in his field, such as being an expert guest on CBS This Morning, and national TV shows that are no longer on the air, like John & Leeza from Hollywood, The Home and Family Show, and Mike & Maty. These national shows reach a lot more than obscure publications. He hosted a PBS series, Adoption Forum. These are cited on imdb.com and in the San Diego Union Tribune Article. Other sources additionally cite the Today Show and Sally Jessy Raphael, but I got those from author bios, not independent cites like for the other shows. I cited his adoption case that went to the United States Supreme Court. This is clearly a very notable person. But I was told these details were "promotional" so I took it all out! So I just left in the citations to his books (reviews by unquestionable book review entities, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, San Diego Union Tribue, January Magazine), a feature article in San Diego Union Tribune, a quotation in the New York Times with reference to his book, Adopting in America, and many mystery journals. His book awards or nominations are all by entities that are recognized by Wikipedia so clearly significant. Does someone who is not a respected expert/author in their field a guest on half a dozen national TV talk shows, have six or seven books out, and received at least one major mystery award and named a finalist for several others? Wikipedia should always be expanding to include new notable people, not act like a club keeping people out. Just my opinion. Gelo962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A skilled man who has clearly made his mark in his field. An expert in the field of adoption who has written a book on the subject. It seems he well meets the notability standards. Longevitydude (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the article had more than enough sources where the books are reviewed, or the author quoted. Most author articles just have a couple sources. Today I added Rocky Mountain News, Chicago Sun-Times, Los Angeles Times, Rocky Mountain News, Library Journal, and more. There are countless reviews or references in lesser newspapers but am just including the major ones I was able to find. Gelo962. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG, The Baby Game has won the Gumshoe Award for best first novel and been nominated for others, has also been reviewed by lots of WP:RS, Baby Crimes also has reviews, (btw these two books could arguably have their own articles), another of Hicks' books, Adopting in America also has plenty of reviews, and being held by around 500 libraries could also warrant a separate article. ps. article references to lots of these reviews so i'm not listing them here. pps. the article creator, Gelo962, left a message on my talkpage asking me to look at this afd, as it is listed here in the authors afd list, that i regularly check out, i don't believe there are any WP:CANVAS issues. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see any notability, as a lawyer, author or actor. If his sole claim to notability is one book getting a specialty award, that's WP:ONEEVENT; and is already noted in Gumshoe Awards, and there's really nothing else worth notice about that. It really looks like the article is an attempt to take that single fact and leverage it into a full-blown promotional article for Hicks's legal practice and legal writing.

I am not swayed that 500 libraries stock one of his books. There are 1300+ libraries that hold copies of Javascript for Dummies but we don't have an article on Emily A. Vander Veer. Very few books aren't held by at least a couple hundred libraries. I don't think library stock is a relevant factor at all. TJRC (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yep, and if Javascript for Dummies has plenty of reviews (and forgive my computer ignorance, but is Javascript an american-only compulanguage?, otherwise a "dummies" book would be expected in thousands of libraries world-wide, with Adopting in America i would not expect to see it in my local library outside north america), and/or won/been nomonated for awards, and that Vander Veer has written a couple more reviewed books (although having written just 1 book does not preclude a wikiarticle ie. (up till 2016) Harper Lee), then yes, Vander Veer would be notable enough for a wikiarticle, as for "Very few books aren't held by at least a couple hundred libraries.", just have a look at previous literature afd "deletes" to see numerous books that are not (also, as a book hoarder, ahem:), collector i would have 100s of books that are only held in a handful of libraries - one reason why this wikikit didn't pursue librarianship, "what!, librarians cull books, noooooooo.....) Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, Gelo962 here, the article creator. I have a sincere question for those of you who know more than me about proper Wikipedia inclusion of facts. The person above mentions the author is not notable. One of the facts which showed Hicks's national recognition as an author and expert in the adoption field was the fact he's been on a bunch of national TV talk shows (CBS This Morning, The Today Show, et cetera.) Initially I mentioned those in the article. But someone said it was "promotional," so I took it out. I'm truly at a loss. I don't see it as promotional, but now that facts like that are not in there, there is someone saying there is nothing "notable" about him (despite his writing 7 or 8 books, reviews or mentions of the books in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Rocky Mountain News, San Diego Union Tribune, Orange County Register, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal. . . So someone please tell me if I should add the TV talk shows back in there with cites to the newspapers that mention them and ihdb.com. Thanks so much. Gelo962 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo962[reply]

• The effective thing to do is simply to add the WP:RS to the page. Such as reviews in major newspapers. it is far more efficient and effective than arguing. Once you have improved the article, you can say so in a ocmment that begins WP:HEYMANN. As you will see by following link" WP:BLUDGEON Endless comments simply exhaust other editors ans make them decide not to bother. As do pages overstuffed with unimpressive links, like articles that mention or quote a wirter , without discussing her/him in any depth. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, , the page was so oversourced with such inadequate sourcing that, having looked at the sources - and due to the endless nature of your comments, I made an assumption and I failed to run an independent search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC) See below, I have now searched, I really searched.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the best source on the page, indeed, the sole source on the page that supports notability is source # 4, a brief feature article in the local section of the The San Diego Union-Tribune, but an article in your local paper ≠ notability. The rest of the plausible sources are stuff like IMDB and reviews in Publisher's Weekly - trade publications that establish the existence of a work, not its notability. He's been quoted here and there. Notability is just not there. WP:NOTPROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this page, or the Talk page is the right place to put this, so I am putting my reply to sirlanz that I've added cites as he requested in both places. I apologize if I'm not doing this correctly. Here is my comment made there. Thanks, Sirlanz, for pointing out the lack of needed cites. Here is my reply from Talk: Thanks SirLanz for your comments and pointing out that your concern is lack of cites of the Gumshoe and that there is no cite re the other three awards that he was an actual finalist (usually there are 3-5 titles short-listed), rather than "nominated" which I understand you to mean that anyone can be nominated for something. What is frustrating to me is I am sure I gave cites for all you requsted but the entire sentence re awards was deleted. I don't believe I did that. Did someone else? I do not know why as every author page lists awards and nominations (more on that in a moment. But to answer your concern I did the following: 1) I created links to the Wikipedia page for all four awards. Please note that rigth on the Wikipedia articles for the Gumshoe (winner) and Anthony (finalist), Hicks is listed right there on the page. But regardless, for all four awards, I've relisted links showing he was the winner or a finalist. I know you are now saying you didn't mean it when you said the awards were not significant, but may I address that anyway, perhaps to whomever deleted the sentence about them. Barnes and Noble, in their mystery/thriller section, lists the eleven major book awards in the genre. Please note that the Gumshoe, Anthony, Barry and Macavity are all listed. Now, about the significance of the four awards (even as a finalist and not being the winner) and the obvious propriety of listing the awards, I did a quick review of author articles on Wikipedia. Significantly, note that I did not go to pages of "small" authors rather the biggest authors, I think all New York Times bestselling authors. So you and others can check out my point that these major authors all have these four awards listed in their articles. Re the Gumshoe, it is significant enough that it is mentioned even when just a finalist (Joseph Finder, Reed Ferrel Coleman), and major mystery authors' articles listing winning the Gumshoe (C.J. Box, Barry Eisler), and other major authors listing the other three awards as winners or finalists (Michael Connelly, Lee Child, Robert Crais). My point is I didn't even have to try to find such authors. The first half dozen I tried made my point. So I really feel I've addressed your concerns and you will elect to join those voting to keep the article. And no one has still answered my question... Hicks has been credited with being on 4 or 5 network talk shows (CBS This Morning, et cetera) and hosted a PBS series many years ago. These clearly show his national recognition. So do I list them to show that? Or will someone again state that is somehow promo not credits? Those people can't fairly have it both ways. Lastly, in looking at many author articles, I found blatant promo, where gushy blurbs of reviews were included. There is none of that in the article I created. Also, many longstanding author articles have only a cite or two besides the author website for info. My article is very well researched, with book review or book recommendations in the NYT, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Rocky Mountain News, San Diego Union Tribune, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, hollywood.com, ihdb.com, et cetera. Thanks so much for your reconsideration. All the above, and writing eight books, seem to clearly make a person notable. Ill try to copy this to the other page on retention/deletion to make sure you see it. Thanks. Gelo962 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo862[reply]

• WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Revisiting this at the request of User talk:Gelo962 on my talk page. I am searching, and not finding notability. User:Coolabahapple, are you sure? I started to rethink in the light of your comment above. But when I search on Proquest new archive, for "the baby game" + "Randall Hicks" all I see is some local book PROMO, (a handful of local feature stories & bookstore signings,) Baby Cries has only 1 local feature, no signings. Not the reviews you seem to think exist, except, of course the ones in the trade journals. Reviews in PW and Library Journal are simply not enough to pass WP:CREATIVE 4,c. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly, his nonfiction book Adopting in America got a pair of local feature stories and a mention or two in stories about adoption. User:Coolabahapple, are you quite sure about your assertion that it got "plenty of reviews"? I don't mean to be hard on you, I know that we all make mistakes, but you are usually an extremely reliable editor. Not one given to making unsupported assertions. I just can't find reviews in mainstream publications, or even in trade journals for lawyers. I accept that the book sold, but the fact that a book sold does not make it a notable book. @Megalibrarygirl:, a librarian who will have an opinion worth listening to, if she has time/inclination to weigh in. Frankly I am not seeing sources that pass WP:AUTHOR. Being successful at self-promotion (getting feature stories in local papers and bookstore signings) is NOT the same as being a notable writer, or a notable expert on a topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:AUTHOR #3 (...must have been the primary subject of (...) multiple independent periodical articles or reviews)[9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient to establish notability as per WP:AUTHOR. The first source listed by Vejvančický is the local section of his local newspapers. The 2nd is January Magazine - does anyone know if this is a reliable source? The final 3 are PW, a trade magazine that gives snippet reviews to pretty much every book backed by a publisher. It is generally regarded at AFD as establishing that a book exists, not that it or its author is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I've asked this several times but no one has answered it. Maybe the bold with help. I'm looking for genuine advice here as I don't have the experience all the above people do. Re the question of national recognition and notariety, as well as of interest re the subject (Hicks), should I list all his appearances on the national TV talk shows? Except for CBS This Morning, which is still on, the others are not, but I recognize several of them as network shows, big in their day, reaching millions of people. I know the author's bio is evidently not sufficient as a source, and I seem to recall one or two of the articles I cited mentioned some of the TV shows and the PBS hosting, but I don't recall which ones and I don't want to go through them again. I know ihdb lists many of them. Is this seen as a credible source? I see them under the film biography in "Other Works." But many are from the 1990s so I'd have no idea how to find a "source" for them other than ihdb. So, again, do I list the five talk shows/news shows' credits from ihdb, or just mention them here toward showing Hicks's national recognition re his books but not mention them in the article? Thanks in advance for the help. Gelo962 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo962[reply]

• Respond Notability standards can be found at WP:AUTHOR: 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. In practice, this wold mean, at a minimum, that at least one - and usually more - books have been the subject of substantive reviews in well-known journals.

• and 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. This means precisely what it says.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternatively, there are WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Read them carefully.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• hi E.M.Gregory, revisiting this, maybe "plenty of reviews" for Adopting in America was a bit of an exaggeration, there are 3 after a gsearch ie. Publishers Weekly - "No touchy-feely paean to the joys of adopting, Hicks's book is a nuts-and-bolts, practical guide to the entire process of adopting a child.", Library Journal - "Hicks, a renowned adoption attorney, has updated his hallmark reference work, first published more than a decade ago.", Booklist - subscription required, and the article on Hicks lists a review by the Chicago Sun-Times, so that makes 4, as for "except, of course the ones in the trade journals. Reviews in PW and Library Journal are simply not enough to pass WP:CREATIVE 4,c (or is it 3. - "or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.")" isn't really so cut and dry, just have a look at this afd discussing the can of worms that is trade reviews, and the nbook talkpage touches on it in places (i personally believe if we discounted trade reviews it would be the end of civilisation as we know it (apologies to sir humphrey:))) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I'll bow to the consensus of the editors in the discussions you cite. END.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response to my question re the TV shows. I actually just hoped for a "include them" or "don't include them," as there seems to be a lot of grey area and I'm trying to learn them and fit in and you all know them better than me. Frustrating to me is that the "delete" voters mention not enough national print media attention. I guess I disagree, but regardless, one can't dispute the multiple network TV and news appearances that are in addition to the print media. What percentage of listed authors on Wikipedia have been on 4 or 5 national network news/talk shows? Maybe less than one percent? But forced to decide on my own to list them in the article or not, I am of the opinion that mentioning them in the article is not appropriate as kind of showy - not directl related to an author page - but important to mention here for editors to be aware of as significant national recognition. So here they are listed on imdb, which I have always thought of as a legit site, but maybe it does not measure up to your standards? I honestly don't know, butI don't know where else to see TV shows someon appeared on listed, other than the "author bio" stuff, which I know is not acceptable. And it is funny that someone said they wanted more major press sites, because I listed more initially, but another editor removed them and said "over cited," so I kind of can't win. I'm not going to research them again and add them. I simply found them with plain old Google searches combining "Randall Hicks," with words like "The Baby Game, "Adopting in America," "Baby Crimes," "author," and "attorney." Thanks, Gelo962 (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Gelo962[reply]

• Keep: It clearly meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Randall Hicks is skilled person who is an expert in his field. Therefore, I agree that the article is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a popular writer, but for the record he badly fails every test as a notable lawyer, including both my standards and the failed proposal about law. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, Bearian, so I deleted "attorney" from the introductory line and left only "writer." I'd included "attorney" as one of his key books was written as an attorney and on a legal subject, but I get your point that's more of a sub note to be mentioned only within the article. Thanks. Gelo962 (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Gelo962[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  08:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Monohull Open Classes Association

International Monohull Open Classes Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is completely unreferenced and it fails to signify why this association is notable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination is unconvincing; looks like a drive-by. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not as unconvincing as your comment. ;) I appreciate the good faith though. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick WP:BEFORE would have shown a range of reliable sources in English, French, Portuguese, Russian, Greek... etc. (and also a referenced & sourced article in the Portuguese language Wikipedia). Exemplo347 (talk)

...and where might those sources be? They're certainly not in the article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - I shouldn't have to explain WP:BEFORE to an Admin & I'm not willing to do so because it'll make me sound like an ass. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what BEFORE is, I just don't see evidence of notability. Those are two separate things. Proving notability by providing significant coverage in multiple, independent sources (preferably in the article) would go a long way to solving this problem. Until then, I stand by my nomination. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, OK... Just by clicking on "Find Sources" at the top of this discussion I've found this, this, this, this, and in Books I found quite a few results. Honestly, there is so much coverage in such a wide range of sources that I'm quite surprised to be asked to do your leg-work for you. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it doing my legwork, I'm prodding you to formulate a "keep" !vote that has some meat to it. If you continue to do that, you'll be well on your way to "winning" more often. That being said, I have my doubts about those sources, but I appreciate the effort. Cheers, -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to be prodded - if a proper WP:BEFORE had been done I wouldn't have had to show you that there are sources. Also, I don't think "winning" is an actual thing in AfD discussions. It's about policy, nothing more. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is about policy. That's why articles should have multiple references from independent, reliable sources showing significant coverage, per WP:GNG. Anything less than that, and it should be deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources uncovered by Exemplo347 (talk · contribs). If they exist, then the subject meets the WP:GNG whether or not they are currently incorporated into the article: see eg. WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. Also a little perturbed by the sniping from @Tavix:: we're all here to deliberate and discuss, let's cool it a bit. Amisom (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amisom: I'm not sure what you mean. I completely agree with you that we're here to deliberate and discuss and that's exactly what I'm doing. Perhaps if I explain myself a little better, that might help. Let's take a look at the sources provided by Exemplo: 1) appears to be run by IMOCA for their Ocean Master's World Championship. It's not an independent source so that can't be used towards meeting WP:GNG. 2) is boats.com, which is described as an "advertising website". They're in the business of selling boats, not upholding editorial integrity, so they would not be classified as a WP:Reliable source. 3) I get an error message trying to open it, so I will withhold judgement of it. 4) appears to be a blog? I'm not too sure since I read a machine translated version of the article. I'd be interested in getting your own analysis of those sources and why you feel they meet WP:GNG. I apologize if you feel I'm "sniping". -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep After looking-up sources provided by @Exemplo347: I started to considered it meeting bottom-line notability criteria. However, I am still not sure about the existance of significant coverage of the subject. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 19:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've tried to search for sources since a couple of days. I've added two sources too to the article. However, I have not been able to find significant sources. This organization seems to be significant in oceanic sailing, and has even propounded the standards for some categories. But there's no significant coverage in reliable sources. I'll await responses from the editors who have mentioned keep, failing which, I would recommend a delete. Lourdes 13:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: The four sources provided by Exemplo347 are reviewed below by me:

• Imocaoceanmasters.com: Absolutely primary source; doesn't talk about IMOCA but about the races etc; is not an RS.
• Boats.com: It's a boat selling site, with the topmost links being "Boats for sale", "Sell my boat"...; not an RS.
• Isafyouthworlds.com Auckland Youth Sailing World Championship website: The link is dead.
• VendeeGlobe.org: Primary source; doesn't talk about IMOCA but about its race; is not an RS.

All other comments of the keep !voters has been without any guideline basis. So it'll be good if someone can either quote a guideline or provide reliable sources. Because the only two sources in the article are the ones added by me; and there have been no other RS forwarded till now. Thanks. Lourdes 03:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion would be quite inappropriate because this is the governing body for a major class of racing yachts. Note that the main race for the class -- the Vendee Globe -- finished recently and got good coverage in mainstream sources such as the BBC and Daily Telegraph. There is obviously lots of coverage in the specialist press for this sport such as Yachting World. In such circumstances, there are obvious alternatives to deletion and so the topic should be left to editors who know something about it, rather than being disrupted in a crude, drive-by manner. This approach is very much our policy. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Andrew. Thanks for the response. I understand what you're referring to and accept your point of the organization being significant (even I've mentioned the same in my statement). I started with the same viewpoint as yours (and in fact, in Afds, my first attempt is that only; perhaps the reason why I must be !voting keep a significant number of times). I would also accept that the competition is quite notable. But then, there are no sources at all covering the organization! I can on the other hand go the way schools or national political parties are kept at Afd, if you can guide me to some precedent documenting page (whether essay or guideline), which mentions that such organizations which run notable races/events are generally kept at Afds; I'll be more than pleased to withdraw my viewpoint thereon. Of if you can suggest similar organizations which have been kept at Afds, that too is acceptable. Other than that, I absolutely reject your suggestion that this is a crude, drive-by manner nomination at all. There are absolutely no significant sources covering the organization and the nominator is quite intelligent to have identified this organization. I respect your experience here and don't feel I should be arguing with you. Will await your links or examples of previously kept organizations. Thanks. Lourdes 13:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for reference, in my view, this organization satisfies one part of the suggested two points in WP:NONPROFIT. Thanks. Lourdes 13:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My own searching failed to come up with any good sources for the association. Looking at other popular boats, we tend to have articles for the boat, but not for the class association. Thus, J24, but not International J24 Class Assocation. We have Laser (sailboat), but not International Laser Class Association. And, on the big-boat scene, we have 12 meter class, but not International Twelve Metre Association. Being the governing body for a major class of racing yachts is not sufficient to demonstrate notability by our policies. You need good sources, and they don't seem to exist. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've waited for quite a few days now after requesting sources or relevant guidelines. Not one source has been provided that either is significant or covers the association/organisation in depth. No guideline has been quoted that allows such cases to remain. I'm one of the editors at Afds with a significantly higher average of keep !votes than others. I even managed to find two sources and added the same to the article (which are, till date, the only two sources that exist in the article). Clearly, I'm not going to shed tears at my work on the article going waste if the article gets deleted. In my personal opinion, such articles should be kept for informational purposes (our NLIST guidelines allow lists to be kept like that); and we should update our guidelines for such reasons. Till that is done, I am not going to support keeping such articles. I would advise the closing administrator not to close this as no consensus. There is absolute consensus for delete, given that the keep assertions have till now not provided any supporting source or guideline - with due respect to Andrew's comments. Lourdes 04:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to be pretty significant in the world of sail racing. I found this, this, which seems to indicate that the World Championships held in this organization's name are a pretty big thing, and it gets lots of mentions like this, this, this, this, this (if they are the group which gives the classifications out, that would also be an indication of notability), this, and this. Searching for IMOCA, yields thousands of results which deal with this organization's classifications, etc.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Onel5969, I've gone through all your sources. There's no source that talks about the organization. There are references to either the event that the organization holds, or to a yacht class the organization maintains standards for. Which source are you referring to for significant coverage of the organization? Also, which notability guideline would you be referring to, to keep the article? Thanks. Lourdes 19:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Lourdes - Forgive me, for the life of me, I can't link to the correct guideline/policy. I'm at work, and can't access the information until later tonight, but there is a guideline which says that when a topic is mentioned enough, even if they are all trivial mentions, the weight of the trivial mentions constitutes notability. I hadn't heard of it either, but learned of it through an AfD discussion a couple of years ago. I used to know it off the top of my head, but I'm not that active on AfD anymore, so this addled mind can't remember the acronym for it, so will have to go back to some of the AfD discussions where I voted keep and see if I can find it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Onel5969. Sure. Take your time. Thanks for the response. Lourdes 19:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Onel5969, pinging you to request you for quoting the notability guideline. Also, none of your sources cover the workings of the organization. Would you consider withdrawing your keep !vote? Thanks and have a good day. Lourdes 03:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lourdes - I looked at about 100 or so of my AfD votes, and couldn't find the link. The best I found was specific to biographies (WP:BASIC - which I don't think applies in this case). Thanks for pinging again, as I am working on a couple of articles, and this wasn't my focus. But no, I don't think I'll remove my keep !vote. An organization which oversees the world championship, and who regulates the classes of the competing groups, in my opinion, is notable. Perhaps IAR applies here.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the nine sources cited above. Of them, four were in English, so I concentrated on those (not being in English doesn't mean the others aren't good sources, just that I'm not in a position to evaluate them very well):

• Canada Rolex Sailor of the Year to form offshore race team (Scuttlebutt Sailing News). Let's pass for a moment on whether a site like Scuttlebutt is a WP:RS. This is not about the IMOCA. It is about Eric Holden. IMOCA is barely mentioned, and then only in the context of the races it manages.
• Sailing world descends on Muscat for week-long ISAF Annual Conference (inside the games). Another site which probably doesn't meet WP:RS. And, again, this isn't about IMOCA. It's about a conference held by ISAF. IMOCA isn't event mentioned until deep in the article, and then only in the context of a race which was won by a person who's going to the conference.
• Why do the new Vendee Globe IMOCA 60 yachts have foils? (Yachting World). Yachting World is at least a solid WP:RS. But, again, not about IMOCA. It's about a class of boats sanctioned (maybe that's not the best word?) by IMOCA.
• THE FUTURE OF THE IMOCA (Sailing World). Definitely meets WP:RS, but once again, not really about IMOCA, the organization. It's about the IMOCA 60 class, which we do have an article about.

In short, none of these meet WP:SIGCOV. They are all what we call passing mentions. Some of the sources would be good references for other articles (i.e. IMOCA 60), but they don't justify an article on the association itself. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Onel5969 hi again. Thanks for clarifying that you believe this article may qualify on WP:IAR. In my opinion, IAR should not be invoked unless there are egregious circumstances for the same. Thanks once more for the response. Have a good night. Cheers. Lourdes 05:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lourdes:- that may be your opinion but it is one not borne out by the text of WP:IAR, which contains no "exceptional circumstances only" clause, but instead is phrased in deliberately general terms. Amisom (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is SIGCOV Amisom (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The one line on IMOCA your source documents is a Letter to the Editor, and goes like this: "Around Alone was the catalyst for the development of sound rules, now recognized by the International Monohull Classes Association (IMOCA), which have produced the very fast yachts we see in around-the-world races today.". Letters to the editor are unacceptable as RS. And one line is absolutely not significant coverage. Is there something else you wanted to link? Because if you meant this link in reality, you need to first read up on what Wikipedia means by reliable sources before listing more sources. We're volunteers and it's an investment of time which should not be wasted. Ask me for any assistance if you don't understand the guidelines page. Thanks. Lourdes 17:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Moved back to Draft space. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campuzano-Polanco family

Campuzano-Polanco family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The family seems notable but I'm unable to find significant coverage confirming the information in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Meatsgains (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still in the process of being created. The sources will be added asap. Please be patient. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be a case of WP:BITE. Though the creator is encouraged to use Template:Under construction, the next time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree that this may have been nominated a bit prematurely. It is coming along, and seems to meet GNG as a family. Some of the individuals may be notable in and of themselves, as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to user space and encourage article creator to read WP:RS and pay particular attention to the need to source assertions in-line.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC) (Changed to Delete, see below.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy per WP:REALPROBLEM. New articles should not be created in article space. We have sandboxes and the draft namespace for this purpose. This isn't 2004 anymore. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea about the sandboxes and draft namespace. Will use these tools for sure in the future. Apologies for any inconvinience guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas (talk • contribs) 01:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 25 edits were reverted without any reason. I put a lot of time adding realible sources so I at least expect reasons why you make changes

Also it has been a while since I finished constructing what the final article would look like and nobody has said anything. You are very quick to add the article to deletion but not to remove the deletion notice now that its fairly completed and sources added? I might not as experienced as you in wikipedia but please respect my time and effort a bit more. If this is the way you treat the new editors it leaves a lot to be said about the people running wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My guess as to why your edits were reverted is because you tried removing the AfD template, which clearly states, "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed". I urge you to continue improving the page and adding reliable sources but do not remove the AfD notice. Again, had you drafted this article in your sandbox, you wouldn't have to worry about others reverting your edits. Next time though! Meatsgains (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the reason why I deleted the AFD template was because I actually thought that the discussion about whether to keep the article up had finished since the majority of vote said to keep it and keep improving it. Does the notice get automatically removed after a while or should it remove it myself? I have no idea on how to proceed. However, the 25 edits cannot be reverted automatically and seems like I have to do all the manual work again. Really? Penalizing a novice in this matter for his mistakes is not the way to keep new editors motivated and again says a lot about the "democratization of knowledge" that wikipedia sells to the world

Keep working at it. AfD is rough, and I'm sorry about that. I've restored the work that was reverted - leaving the AfD and under construction tags, hopefully that was the right thing to do (even I'm not always sure). There are no promises that your work on this page will ultimately be kept, you must always live with the unbearable lightness of being on a web page anyone can edit. But I am enjoying reading your work, and others are too. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Enion glas has mentioned on their talk page that they have pretty much finished editing the article and the under-construction tag has been removed from the article, so if you were waiting to discuss the page until it that point, it seems that it is now in a more stable state. I still think the article is suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject is the family but this article is really a mishmash of biographies about 10 different people. Note how in House of Tudor most (but not all) the content is about the family, not just individual members. The fact that all members of the Tudors are notable themselves means that article could be a list. This article has no notable members so there's no claim of notability. The sources are almost exclusively in Spanish so it's not something I feel comfortable AGF'ing on. From the looks of it most of the sources are also primary sources and WP:GNG doesn't actually allow for primary sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The biographies are not of 10 different people. They are all the same family, with each generation producing a notable member. Some family pages have a more short style section based format to its presentation and some of them just include the links of their members. Ex.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essen_family. "This article has no notable members? Are you serious? It contains one of the two most famous/notable privateers of the Spanish colonies (along with Miguel Enriquez from Puerto Rico) and a heroe of the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, a very important battle, perhaps the most important in the history of Spanish colonial Latin America. It contains one of the few rectors of the University of Salmanca that were born in the Americas (criollo) and a distinguished politician in the metropolis of Spain named Procer del Reino by Isabel II, a very uncommon thing at that time for an american criollo not born in Spain. Out of this family comes Jose Maria Heredia, compared by some to be the Walt Whitman of Latin America. The sources are all legitimate and they can be translated for verification. --Enion Glas (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the article could be spun out into articles about many of the constituent individuals. If this were done, then an article, List of members of the Campuzano-Polanco family would be appropriate, even if this one were not. However, I could see an argument for interest and inclusion in this article some individuals that might not quite meed GNG (such as Francisco Gregorio Campuzano Polanco (1682-1750)); whose inclusion in this article would be appropriate; and whose inclusion in a list might not be appropriate. Can you list the sources which talk about the family as a group, rather than focusing on the individuals? I guess that Agudo 2007, Rodriguez Demorizi 1959, and Cassa 2013 (the first one of his cited, currently citation 17) do, is that right? What about the other sources? Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My intention from the beginning was to create an article about this family in more of a timeline format highlighting their main political, military or ecclessiastical merits. I could create perhaps an article in the House of Tudor fashion that Christroutman brought up, however it was not my intention to elaborate endlessly about the lives of each of them. If you would like to do so, some of the sources go over important epidoses of some of the character's lives.

Some families are quite extensive and it would make sense that cousins, distant cousins, half brothers, etc would have do be described on different links. However what distinguishes this family and makes it unique perhaps is that it is quite a small family, an each generation (not spread out branches, etc), which kept itself quite small if you notice, achieved notable merits. It is quite rare to find a family with so many merits generation after generation in the archives of the council of indies that you can access through archivesportaleurope.net. No other family from colonial Latin America has a hero in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, where all of the naval captains where pure Spaniards and Europeans (not criollos from America), a politician that achieved so many merits in the metropolis of Spain AND one of the best and most famous poets of Latin America considered to be the first Romantic poet of America, for which of course I only highlighted his name since he already had an article. If you can find a family with members such as this please point it out to me since I would love to read about them. Most colonial families from Latin America just achieve a noble title for killing a bunch of defenseless indigenous people or finding a gold or silver mine. In fact I left out a bunch of small achievements and positions from the family members just to keep this article easy to read.

Rarelly will you find a sources where they talk about just one family member. Usually the case is that you find all the members mentioned together in an article or a book. Other sources where they mention all the family members or the family as a whole are

Utrera, Fray Cipriano de. "Dominicanos Insignes en el exterior. Pag 11". CLIO Vol. 33.

Utrera, Fray Cipriano de. "Heredia: Centenario de Jose Maria Heredia, Pag. 139". Editorial Franciscana, Ciudad Trujillo 1939.

Machado Baéz, Manuel. Santiagueses ilustres de la colonia. 2nd Edition, Santo Domingo, Ediciones Centurión, 1972

Francisco Gregorio Campuzano was a PRIOR PROVINCIAL for a big region of South America (all the West Indies and Venezuela). You dont think that is quite a merit FOR A CRIOLLO? Please understand that this is a criollo family and most of the positions/achievements that they obtained where usually reserved for peninsulars (Spaniards born in Spain) For this reason I do not think he should be left out at all.--Enion Glas (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you go to Google Books and type Campuzano Polanco you will find perhaps more than a hundred sources that talk about them and that I didnt include in the article. Sources in English and from different countries (Spain, Cuba, Venezuela, Santo Domingo)

https://www.google.se/search?biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=bks&q=campuzano+polanco&oq=campuzano+polanco&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.0.4028.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.serp..0.0.0.tE4LLJyhO-4--Enion Glas (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My intention wasn't to discuss the inclusion or exclusion of any individual in this article, merely to ask, as I said, if you could list the sources which talk about the family as a group, rather than focusing on the individuals? You are, I think, suggesting that for my answer I should check google books, which is not very specific, but ok. Thanks. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google books gives you lots of sources for them as a family yes along with the 3 sources I pointed out above being the most elaborated perhaps--Enion Glas (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was flagged by article creator to return to this discussion. Notice that none of the individual family members are bluelinked. And that many of the claims seem excessive (Private burial chapel of the Campuzano-Polanco: This interesting and unique chapel is the only one of its kind in America and one of the four vaults with astrological representations that exist today in the world, along with the Celestial Vault or "Sky of Salamanca" in the Univerisity of Salamanca, Chapel of the Benaventes in Rioseco and the Chapel of Osiris in the Hathor Temple of Dandera). given the present condition of the article and its sourcing, I cannot ivote to keep. Nothing that I see gives me condfidence that this meets our standards with respect to sourcing or notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I chose not to bluelink them for reasons stated above. No, the claims are not excessive. It is an interesting chapel and it IS unique. There are plenty of experts and sources talking about this chapel

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3047296?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00043079.1950.11407932?needAccess=true&journalCode=rcab20

https://books.google.se/books?id=hhNfVshMw64C&pg=PA721&dq=chapel+of+the+zodiac+santo+domingo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM8qDNpubRAhXCNJoKHYThBEoQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=chapel%20of%20the%20zodiac%20santo%20domingo&f=false

https://books.google.se/books?id=ZaoSAAAAIAAJ&q=chapel+of+the+zodiac+santo+domingo&dq=chapel+of+the+zodiac+santo+domingo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLgbLapubRAhXnYpoKHTO8Cwc4ChDoAQgeMAE

What exactly is that does not give you confidence? Everything that is said has its citations.

Either you are flaming me because I am new here, which in that case I can only say that dealing with all of you has been a disgusting experience to say the least. Not only do you embarrass yourselves by denying the obvious, which makes you sad negationists, but also you are giving a terrible image to this project and if I were running it, I would have taken away your administrator status for bullying a new editor that has put a lot of work on bringing interest to the colonial past of the Caribbean, which is a field that has not been studied much. Lot of information out there about the colonial past of Mexico and Peru perhaps, but not so much of the Caribbean

The article has had the deletion notice for 15 days now and nobody has given a fuck, which shows laziness and dictatorial disdain from your part. The only reason why you chose to write your lame ass comment was because I asked you to. I can also sense jealousy perhaps because this is a Spanish/Latin family with notable individuals as opposed to Anglo Saxon or northern European perhaps.

As I said the sources are there, these are not my words. Literately I have copy pasted the words of other historians here. Not my opinions, not my wishes. Only facts that are verifiable.--Enion Glas (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - large portion of the article seem, according to my poor Spanish, to be a close translation from: Ruth Torres Agudo, ‘Los Campuzano-Polanco, una familia de la élite de la ciudad de Santo Domingo’, Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos [online], Coloquios, Online 05.01.2007. URL : http://nuevomundo.revues.org/3240 ; DOI : 10.4000/nuevomundo.3240. The individuals in the article are clearly real, and writing about them as a family has some precedent. I still think that the article is in decent shape and represents a good contribution to the history of the Dominican Republic and its colonial era, an area which could definitely use more coverage. At the very least, I think some of the individuals discussed could themselves be suitable subjects for an article. If the consensus is to delete this article, I'd like to have the article userfied so that the material on some of the constituent individuals could be developed into articles. It could be userfied either to Enion Glas or, if they do not wish to do it, to my user space and I'll give it a shot. Thanks. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its fair to assume that most of the users commenting here don't work in Caribbean topics often, so I'm just dropping by to let you know that I have seen José Campuzano Polanco mentioned in literature about pirates and corsairs while working on the Roberto Cofresí series. These books were published at Puerto Rico, so at least one member of this family appears notable enough to have his name mentioned in foreign publications. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a close translation of the Ruth Torres Agudo paper. It uses the format that she used which is the format that most if not all of the authors that have written about this family have used as well- a timeline/short description/synopsis of the characters. However my article includes much more information about the origins of the family and elaborates a bit more on the battles they fought (especially with Jose Campuzano Polanco and the Battle of Cartagena de Indias which she completely ignored in her paper). She also left out the poet Jose Maria Heredia as part of her timeline for unknown reasons. --Enion Glas (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sources: Why is there a lack of trust about all the sources because they are mostly in Spanish? Again, I sense discrimination from some editors here that in a subtle way are saying "these sources are in Spanish, so they cannot be trusted". WHO THE FUCK RUNS THIS PLACE? Information comes in all languages. Perhaps it was my mistake to write this article in English if I knew all the arrogant anglo saxons were going to flame me. Should have written it in Spanish first, then I would have just translated it to English to please those that do not speak the second most spoken language in the world.

Regarding notability Some members have international notability- Jose Campuzano Polanco, Francisco Javier Caro and Jose Maria Heredia (who has a plaque at the Niagara Falls- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Heredia_y_Heredia#/media/File:JoseMariaHeredia-plaque-niagarafalls.JPG), Garcia de Polanco being one of the first miners who landed in America with Columbus. The Polanco family are one of the earliest settlers in the Americas which is a notable thing too.

Other members have regional notability- Francisco Gregorio being a Prior Provincial (the only Spaniard criollo from Latin America that I have read about who has achieved such a position), Francisco who became a Mayor in Venezuela and features in Venezuelan publications for his contributions there and Adrian who became a prominent political figure in Cuba.

Others have local notability which is where some of you miss the point. Pedro Perez Polanco for example is a notable and meaningful character in Dominican Republic for having defended the island in both the english and the french invasions. The Polanco family are among the earliest settlers of the north of the island. They might not be notable as world figures but they mean a lot to the island along with other captains. Saying that he is not is like saying "Oh, but he only matters in Dominican Republic, who gives a fuck about a small island history". Well, if it wasnt for him and a few others, the island becomes a english colony and perhaps that creates a snowball effect and then the whole caribbean is lost to England.

Other notable locals that should not be ignored are:

Garcia Polanco becoming Vicar General in 1660 is also very notable since that position was also reserved to peninsulars (spaniards born in Spain). Only 2 more criollo spaniards achieved such position in the colony of Santo Domingo that I have read about.

Franscisco Campuzano Polanco being a MAESTRE DE CAMPO is also notable. Only the Governor of the colony of Santo Domingo usually held this military rank, with very few exceptions.

Jose Campuzano-Polanco Morillo being Provincial Mayor of the Santa Hermandad is also a notable feat.

Again, as said in the article, they achieved the highest positions possible for spaniard criollos below being governors or archbishops which were positions that only peninsulars could have. This does not mean that the positions they held were held by many others. Only 2 max 3 other criollos held such positions also. If the editors commenting here knew more about the power structure of the Spanish colonies it would be a no brainer to highlight the notabilty of these local individuals and the exclusivity of these achievements.

The Chapel of the Rosary owned and reconstructed by the family IS unique in America and the world and is also notable. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3047296?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Regarding spltting the family into separate articlesThe timeline of this family is alsmot like a copy of the timeline of the colony of Santo Domingo, since the family was pretty much involved in every single meaningful event and period of it. Splitting the family into different articles completely misses the point of my article, which is to in a way use the history of a family and its genealogy to elaborate on important incidents of the history of the island that have been poorly studied and sometimes completely ignored even by the local people and historians of the Dominican Republic. The family was broken apart by the Treat of Basel in 1795 which forced all the colonial families of Santo Domingo to emigrate (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Santo_Domingo), basically wiping out 300 years out of the collective memory of the people who habitates the island today and putting the whole family in an article attempts to fill in major blank spots in the big picture of the history of the island. Please lets keep this family together in an article instead of splitting it, like the Treaty of Basel did, into unconnected characters without a common ground. --Enion Glas (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editors that want this article closed have gone silent after I have given them solid sources for the claims made here. Others now say "they dont have any views on the matter anymore". They have nothing to fight back now except to keep being negationists and giving wikipedia a very bad image. --Enion Glas (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to bludgeon editors and that's not how consensus works. This will probably close as "delete" and there's nothing you can do about it. Your ongoing rants only serve to alienate other editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have texted other editors in order to get them to contribute to the discussion and nobody seems to care which is why this article has gotten relisted twice. I on the other hand have done my best to keep on improving the article by adding new sources and replying to the comments and questions that have been asked. --Enion Glas (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - I've struck my keep !vote. Per WP:PRESERVE, I don't think the page should be outright deleted, given there really does appear to me to be enough information for at least one quality article and a few stubs. My suggestion to the page creator would be to use most of this article as an article about Pedro Perez Polanco (c.1640-1710) with mention of his notable descendants (as redlinks until turned blue would be fine). Additionally, pages about many of the other members of the family could be turned into articles. But looking at the references, the family isn't notable as a family in the same way that a noble house might be. As the number of descendants with pages grows, a template or category can be used to organize them (similar to Template:Washington family and Category:Washington family) - and possible a short article (but with much less information about any given individual, most articles about families are navigation aids usually with extended information only about a founding member). Enion Glas, do you plan to write articles about the individual family members, yes or no? Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smmurphy I think the format you propose is valid. However I believe Pedro Perez Polanco might not be ideal as the title of the article since the amount of sources about him is not as extense as the Campuzano Polanco name/family as a whole. The major source of citations is definitely google books https://www.google.se/search?biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=bks&q=campuzano+polanco&oq=campuzano+polanco&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.0.4028.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.serp..0.0.0.tE4LLJyhO-4-- and there you can see that Campuzano Polanco is what brings up the notability. I can red link some of the members I talked about in the Origins section of the article and write two articles, one about Jose Campuzano Polanco and another about Francisco Javier Caro. Jose Maria Heredia already has an article lwritten both in English and Spanish. None of the families from Santo Domingo achieved a title of nobility, unlike in Mexico, Peru and Cuba for example. The reason could be that both Garcia de Polanco, the first and founding member of the Polanco family in the island, and for sure as confirmed, Gregorio Campuzano, the founder of the Campuzano Polanco branch, were hidalgos before they arrived, which means untitled Spanish nobility. The fact that they had their coat of arms and their private burial chapel clearly confirms this. One thing I can guarantee you is that as a family, they are the most notable one in the colonial period of Santo Domingo, and I can take it as far as saying that they were the most notable and accomplished family in the whole Caribbean during the colonial times in terms of merits and longevity.--Enion Glas (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if I should go ahead and create the separate articles or wait until the consensus is reached. I dont want to spend time creating new articles if they are going to be deleted--Enion Glas (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can go ahead. I'd recommend you create the article in draft space or your user space; consider using the article creation wizard, or just call the article Draft:Article Name or User:Enion Glas/Article name when you create the article. Once you've got something you are happy with, you can move it to the mainspace or ask for help/advice (I'd recommend you have someone look over at lest your first couple new pages before putting them in the main space - WP:AFC is an official process for looking over new articles). For help/advice, you can ask at the WP:Teahouse or ask me at my talk page or you can ping me by typing {{ping|Smmurphy}} at any talk page, userspace page, or draft space page, or you can ask a question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk if you are using the AFC process.

Given the consensus seems to be against keeping this article as is, do you have your work saved locally? I'm not sure if the consensus is to userfy, so you might make sure you do in case this page is deleted. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but in all honesty I have no time at the moment to recreate the whole thing with all the sources. It is very time consuming and I have lost enthusiasm due to the poor treatment I have received as a new editor. I have seen terrible articles with a few poor sources here in wikipedia that are still up and probably havent even been listed for deletion before. --Enion Glas (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mifter (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Eaddy

Simon Eaddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has coached as senior level but only as a goalkeeper coach. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I have found a lot of passing coverage but don't think it's enough to pass GNG. -- Shudde ^talk 09:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. There is no indication that he meets WP:GNG, and his playing/coaching career does not meet the criteria laid our in WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. Fails WP:NFOOTY. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)}

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Voelker

Jason Voelker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable and sounds like a puff piece I feel it does not pass WP:BIO. FITINDIA (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clear advertising and all the signs confirming it hence deletion is always the solution for it. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain I have removed any indicia of advertising and the subject matter is highly notable and corroborated by multiple reliable sources - Briefed in U.S. Supreme Court, Appointed County Department Head, every judge in state court recused and matter transferred to chief judge of Supreme Court. [[User:Michael M. Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by David M. Johnson (talk • contribs) 01:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a notable and interesting case that has been discussed in a number of newspapers, forums and the legal community at large. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.202.86.138 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While it is commendable for a convicted criminal to reform becomes a productive member of society, I see no indication either in the article already on the page or in those I see in a search that Voelker comes anywhere close to meeting notability standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have reviewed the subject and note additional sources unrelated to the subject matter noted herein. Subject is referenced in Colorado^[1] a Solano Newspaper for successfully litigating against a power company^[2] and he is also noted in a legal treatise published by LexisNexis.^[3] For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"or "note"– that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. Subject appears to meet the criterion for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.202.86.138 (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the closing Admin Both keep votes are from the same IP address and the third keep vote is from the creator of the article.FITINDIA (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Since administrators don't, or at least aren't, supposed to count votes; the strength of argument that these two keeps provide is retained.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - all of the best sourcing revolves around a single event. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find that the sourcing encompasses multiple events - i.e., imprisonment, "jailhouse lawyering," litigating in Supreme Courts, ex officio department head, subsequent lawsuit, recusal of 13 judges, referred to state supreme court, Sunshine law violations, etc. I opine that, minus the administrators votes, which, for all intents and purposes should not be counted, the article should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:8200:9EB0:18FC:2225:250:BF3F (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy on request, for a retarget of the article to Marin County Law Library.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is very much a puff piece, clearly written to praise as much as possible Voelker's work while in prison. None of the coverage rises above mere news and local coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Voelker does not meet WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Lincolnite (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Miller

Blair Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG as there is not significant coverage from reliable sources. Currently the sources seem to redirect to places to search for information about the subject. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 05:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've tried to fix the current article references. Both were actually to separate parts of the same article. Similar article here and here were all I found. Perhaps better than average coverage for a job change. Doesn't meed GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. 21:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable local broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication of significant notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Hammer

Jessica Hammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about an Assistant Professor that fails to establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. A google search provides no information to pass WP:PROF. Article created by WP:SPA with a total of 2 edits all of which are to this article. CBS527^Talk 20:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep youngish academic who attracts a good deal of attention in general-circulation press, some of which I have added to the article. And the press likes to quote her; I suppose she knows how to give a good quote see:, just for example, [14]. The sources I added to the article actually say something about her. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"youngish academic who attracts a good deal of attention in general" is not what establishes notability, especially not when an assistant professor with no library significance or citations to show for it. Being quoted and liking to quote her is not a claim of notability here. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A surprising degree of coverage in reliable and verifiable sources in the general media and in scholarly work, all of which establishes notability, Nice detective work by E.M.Gregory to confirm notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Her top five papers in GS have 515, 379, 209, 25, 12 citations, so only 3 papers with substantial citations as yet, not exactly a body of work.[15] Together with assistant professorship, she seems borderline on WP:PROF but might meet other guidelines. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' as the citations above will also show, she's not a significant figure since the highest citation is only as a secondary author and is only in the few hundreds, not a significance; next, she's not held in libraries and the professorship has nothing significant either. Overall, we base these by WP:PROF or coinciding with WP:AUTHOR if significant as an author, and both of them are unsatisfied here. Because her career and field is in education, this article is in WP:PROF area (as the nomination shows) and since the two above have not cited either WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF or anything significant to show for her career, it's not the same thing. "surprising degree of coverage in reliable and verifiable sources in the general media and in scholarly work" is not what convinces WP:PROF either, since selection is what establishes a professor's notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep. Her Google scholar shows three well-cited papers but then it drops off steeply. I don't think there's enough depth there for WP:PROF#C1, although it's a case of WP:TOOSOON — she should be there eventually. I can't read the Pensacola or Capital stories, but of the rest, only the Tribune and Kill Switch pieces are actually in-depth, independent, and about her or her work. (The NYT story, for instance, only gives a pull quote by her, not relevant for notability.) But maybe that's enough for WP:GNG? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Pensacola story is filled with quotes from young campers and staff about how totally cool Hammer is. It is about a summer camp sponsored by U Florida, Hammer is the focus apparetly because a reporter (or an editor) decided to use her as a way to show that a geeky-sounding computer-programming summer camp got teenagers really, really excited about tech, sort of "computer geeks can be cool" which was apparently a new idea in Florida. Hammer is quoted and her educational and employment history is described. The Capital (a daily newspaper, Annapolis, MD) is a profile of the winning team in an Atari-sponsored event in which selected teams of programmers selected by Atari (they were all strangers walking in) compete to produce a video game in 24 hours. Hammer is highlighted because 6 hours of the 24 fell on the Sabbath, and during those 6 hours hammer, a Sabbath-observer, "contemplate programming", only going actual programming after the Sabbath ended.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Off to a good start, but yet WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We very rarely include biographies of living assistant professors in our encyclopedia. This academic is certainly up and coming, and there is some evidence of her breaking into the upper ranks of her field. She may pass merely on the basis of WP:GNG, that she has gotten media attention. If she gained the title of associate professor, there would be more precedent for keeping or re-creating her article; perhaps she is up for tenure and so we could usefy this page. FWIW, I don't know of any connection that I might have to this scholar or her employer. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• sources searching gbooks turns up a handful of hits to this "Jessica Hammer" (non-unique name), including an interesting write-up by John L. Locke (non-unique name) of a student research project she did with Simon Baron-Cohen (some people do have unique names). I added it to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep doesn't meet WP:PROF in my estimation, but the coverage in the general press gets her by WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Let's go back to basics. The WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where significant is a source that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content ... more than a trivial mention" and "multiple sources are generally expected". I've reviewed the sources added by E.M.Gregory and of the independent sources only one includes non-trivial coverage [16] – and I'm not sure whether "killscreen.com" is a reliable source. Yes, Hammer has been mentioned in the press, but literally only mentioned: a single quote in article about an entirely different subject, or an article about a summer camp where the kids say she's their favourite teacher. I'm afraid this fits a pattern I've been noticing at a lot of recent AfDs: E.M.Gregory will type the subject's name into ProQuest and refbomb the article with any and every hit. I've had to remove a number of references where there is absolutely no indication that the "Jessica Hammer" mentioned (e.g. as winning a school science contest in 1994) is the person covered in the article. But unless I'm way off in my understanding of WP:GNG, significant coverage in one source of dubious reliability and a scattering of trivial mentions in other sources comes nowhere near to passing the bar. And with regards to WP:PROF, I agree with the consensus that while Hammer is definitely on track to being a notable academic, it's WP:TOOSOON for her to have made the "significant impact" required by WP:PROF#C1 and she's too junior to meet any of the other criteria. – Joe (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Were you able to access the articles from the Pittsburgh and Annapolis papers? they are hardly examples of refbombing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The "School science contest" that you removed was the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, and the linkage came form another article that you removed, from the New York Jewish Week (and perhaps also form some other articles I had looked at but did not add) confirming that this Jessica Hammer, is the daughter of Michael Hammer, who, along with her siblings, attended a very small parochial high school Maimonides School which can hardly have produced two Westinghouse winners with thes name in the same year (if there had been 2, the Boston Globe would have noted it in t the article about the Westinghouse).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• note also that I did not add the Killscreen source, as implied.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And note that the Proquest News search shows 166 hits. The assertion that I added "any and every one" of them is absurd.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Respond Many articles that come to AFD are poorly sourced. I use Proquest because I have noticed a WP:SYSTEMICBIAS towards presentism caused by the fact that many RS are paywalled and many editors do not have ready access to older sources. In this case, I did what I regularly do with poorly-sourced but not prima facie implausible articles - she is at Carnegie Mellon after all. I ran a search and was impressed by the sources that came up. I may have gotten over-enthusiastic; it may be WP:TOOSOON; but as other Joe Roe have notes, she does appear to be "on track to being a notable academic" and in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE it seem reasonable to lean towards keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I just remembered where we met, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy King (2nd nomination), where I thought we worked together rather well.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Clearly doesn't show the verifiable sources to pass notability. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- appears to be a notable figure on the issues of gender issues in game design noted for her views; see for example: Video Games as Applied Design—Without Women as Designers, Slate & In Virtual Play, Sex Harassment Is All Too Real, The New York Times. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete', does not meet WP:PROF and frankly too soon to judge her notability or impact. Kierzek (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the multi-paragraph section on her work in thes US News & World Report aritcle (just added to page), source # 2. here: [^[1]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - she fails the prof test as merely as assistant professor, but she probably passes for being covered in the media. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Credera

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

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

Entire article shows bold signs at company-initiated advertising and that alone violates our essential and non-negotiable policies because the information and sources here also violate this policy by only being published and republished business announcements, listings and mentions; as always, these subjects have no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone, and there's nothing else convincing here. Originally PRODed with concerns by Reddogsix. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - NN organization lacking in-depth, significant coverage. The claim to notability is being a great place to work. Falls under WP:1EVENT. The coverage are listings and the article lacks in-depth references. reddogsix (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. But consensus is that this needs a complete rewrite.  Sandstein  08:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USWeb

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

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

Uses WP:SPS and Primary Sources which are regurgitation of press releases in PR trade press pubs. Fails WP:GNG and should be deleted as per WP:PLUG as an advertisement for a dissolved defunct company. This company was previously somewhat notable 20 years ago, but nothing recent is availabe online, and the current article lists no sources for the vast majority of its content. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have tried to run down many of the listed sources on the bottom of the article, but I am unable to locate many of them online to verify their contents. I located a second USWeb company online, but it is not the same company as is listed here. The company listed here was acquired by another company then dissolved after it filed bankruptcy proceedings. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as extensive and largely uncited corporate spam, as in:

• "Among the benefits touted was joining USWeb's technical and Internet design skills with the traditional advertising and marketing savvy of CKS."

A prime example where WP:TNT applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Corporate spam?  The so-called spam was written at least three years after the company was liquidated.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This company was among the biggest of the dotcom high-fliers. Has the nominator put in the effort to check BusinessWeek, TIME, WSJ, from 1995–2005? The NYT apparently published a few articles mentioning them: https://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/usweb/. Same with the Chicago Sun-Times: https://www.highbeam.com/Search?FilterByPublicationID=392330&FilterByPublicationName=Chicago+Sun-Times&searchTerm=USWeb . If you really don't like this article, at the very least you should merge into MarchFirst instead of deleting and leaving a WP:REDLINK. Nominator claims that "This company was previously somewhat notable 20 years ago" which flies in the face of WP:NOTTEMPORARY: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." -- DanielPenfield (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What was notable 20 years ago is not necessarily what is notable today. USWeb was a web site design firm a lot like GoDaddy is today, only smaller, and without its own data center. The company is a load of hype and marketecture, I don't think it was all that notable even back then. At any rate, the company is gone and this article has no secondary sources, and the company went bankrupt after it merged with CKS. A merged company should not have an article mainly because it no longer exists under this name. The company had no long lasting effect on the industry, here today gone tomorrow. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is what made the company somewhat notable at the time was claims by its CEO (Joe Firmage) he had been visited by extraterrestrials in his bedroom, after which the company fired him, then merged with CKS (and subsequently went into bankruptcy). From a perspective of BLP, Wikipedia should probably not be writing articles about someone's mental illness and publishing their delusions as though it were fact. This Alien Visitation content does not appear in this article, and without it, this company really has no notability. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went through all your highbeam research and it all says the same thing, USWeb merged with another company then went belly up. Wikipedia is not a ghost town for online advertising for failed, defunct companies with no sources for their article content. None of your highbeam sources validates the current content of the article. WP:TNT. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  The article has many references, which the nominator doesn't deny he/she has not read because they are not online.  Notability is not temporary, and Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of online notability.  As for what is online, WP:BEFORE D1 for Google books shows good snippets for magazines such as Network World, Infoworld, and Computerworld dating from 1996 to 2000.  On the second page, there is a 2011 book called Fit to Bust: How Great Companies Fail with a snippet reading, "Remember USWeb? No, not many people do. The Industry Standard described USWeb's growth strategy in May 1998: 'Since March 1997, it has bought 26 companies, paying for the acquisitions with options and shares currently worth some ..."  Good hits continue to the third page, and which point I stopped looking.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if these trade rag publications are all you can find, then you made my point. Just advertisement for a non-existent company. None of your sources match the content in that article. Acquired 26 companies? then went bankrupt? OK .. sure ... whatever you say.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Industry Standard, which was given as the reference in the 2011 book?  I didn't think so.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Yes, USWeb was a scam, and they were pretty successful at convincing people to sell their perfectly good web development companies in exchange for shares in this conglomerate. They were structured as a franchise model similar to McDonald's, except that local franchisees were not owners of their local shop but were made to salivate at sharing the "profits" coming from the stock market frenzy at the time. Article must be kept as a case study in hubris typical of that period of Internet history. — JFG ^talk 06:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we agree on something. I have known USWeb was a scam for a long time. I followed that company for quite a while in the trade press. What's wrong with this article is it is nothing more than Joe Firmage's brain farts about the great things the company "is going to do", but the sad fact is, the company did none of these things that are in that article -- it was a dot com scam to soak investors with an IPO, and since the company had no core technology, when the IPO money ran out the company had no revenue from customers and it went belly up . If this article is kept I will probably try to remove all the uncited content, which is a lot of what's here. The big problem is running afoul of BLP. When you have someone who claims to be in contact with extraterrestrials, mental illness is clearly in the mix and it makes any content from them suspect. At any rate, Wikipedia is not a place for Joe Firmage's delusions and scams. I will probably leave it to others to fix this article, it's a mess. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this should not be a promotional page for Firmage's outdated and outlandish delusions. But the encyclopedia deserves an article as part of the dot-com bubble saga. WP:TNT perhaps? — JFG ^talk 05:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. WP:TNT Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Moved back to Draft space for improvement. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Williston Lamar Dye

Williston Lamar Dye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER, reads like a memorial Gbawden (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Any recommendations on how we can improve this page so it meets WP criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatgreg (talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DEL8. Judging from a source search subject also fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. — Sam Sailor 18:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortunately, he just doesn't seem to meet guidelines for inclusion. If someone can show otherwise, I'll happily reverse.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• An obituary in the Washington Post, and the fact that he was a Naval Academy grad, makes it extremely unlikely that there are no other sources. It would be useful to know what version(s) of his name he usually used. Perhaps User:Thatgreg can help us out?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Dye is mentioned by name in 1950s volumes of Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the East - but only hard copies which we can scan. Would this help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatgreg (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The is a published obituary in the Washington Post. Another published obituary would be helpful. As would coverage of his wartime activities (some ships, many battles, almost all military unite have histories published as books or articles.) He might also appear in a memoir written by a classmate or fellow officer. Books and articles are also published about the history of major business corporations. Any of these is helpful, and can be cited even if not available online.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It would also be useful to know what names he may have gone by. Was Williston shortened to a nickname, such as Will or Bill? Was he sometimes referred to W.L.? At certain periods of his life, perhaps? Knowing this makes it possible to search for him. The improbability of a man with a bio that reads like the one in the Washington Post appearing in no other sources seems so very low, that I assume that we must be looking under the "wrong" version of his name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, yes, Who's Who and Who's Who in the East are helpful in establishing notability. Printed sources are fine and a scan (including the volume's front pages) would be great!E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we submit the scans from the Who's Who books?Thatgreg (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)that gregThatgreg (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note on Thatgreg's talk page recommending he submit the scanned pages to OTRS for verification. If there's a better place for him to put them I'm all ears. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fig Tree Hall, University of New South Wales

Fig Tree Hall, University of New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG. this is just student accommodation that has existed for 3 years. All sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge. I cannot find anything sufficient to demonstrate notability for this subject in its own right. Ditto for Basser College, University of New South Wales, Philip Baxter College, University of New South Wales, and Goldstein College, University of New South Wales, all three of which are now out of date by the way since the construction of Fig Tree. Merge all three into one article Kensington Colleges, University of New South Wales with redirects to that. Aoziwe (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Not sure why the article contains the disambiguator ", University of New South Wales" given the base title "Fig Tree Hall" redirects to it. I'd support a redirect of that article to UNSW, but not this one (unlikely search term). -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to either Kensington Colleges, University of New South Wales or Residential colleges of the University of New South Wales. Agree with Whats new? that Fig Tree Hall should be the redirect. If further articles are to be merged I think they should be discussed in a separate nomination. Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Nothing here to justify an article.Charles (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect Enterprise Solutions

Aspect Enterprise Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable corporation. Only minimal independent news coverage, seems to fail WP:CORP. Alex Cohn (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant independent coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Multiple participants were interested in finding additional coverage regarding the band that took their inspiration from the subject, but unfortunately, no additional reliable sources were found to indicate notability for the subject on that front. Absent evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject, the general consensus of this discussion is that the information about the subject would be better suited as a part of the List of Greyhawk deities, rather than as its own article. Mz7 (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyuss (Greyhawk)

Kyuss (Greyhawk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This doesn't establish notability. The current link about the band doesn't appear to mention the connection in its current state, but that alone isn't enough either way. TTN (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, especially if we can find more sources regarding the inspiration for the band, or merge to List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to the appropriate list. Some third-party sources are going to have to be provided before any notability claim is credible. The band link is interesting, but nowhere near enough on its own. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Greyhawk deities. The only non-primary sources are about the band, not the deity, and is in the context of little more than a bit of trivia regarding the band's name origin. That doesn't really do much to establish notability for the actual fictional character itself. Its a decent enough bit of information that can be merged into the deities list, but is not enough by itself to support having this be a separate article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I enjoy D&D and the Greyhawk setting, I would say check if all this is in List of Greyhawk deities, then if that is true, Redirect to List of Greyhawk deities 68.233.214.74 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Greyhawk deities seems the most appropriate course of action in this case. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Country Music Association Award for Male Vocalist of the Year

Country Music Association Award for Male Vocalist of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted because all the information given in the article can be found in Country Music Association Awards. The article also fails WP:NOTDIR #7 because it is a simple listing with no context information. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My first thought was "merge" but, as the nomination said, the information is already in the Country Music Association Awards article. This article is therefore redundant. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This list does need some additional context, but doesn't it already include information about the nominees as well as the winners, information that is not contained in the main article for the awards? We have lots of articles that cover particular important award categories as part of the overall coverage of that award, compare for example the many pages included in Category:Grammy Awards for country music. How, other than its unfinished structure, is this one different? --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Don't confuse a low-quality article with lack of notability. The CMAs are major awards in the industry, (actually, I suppose THE major awards in the industry, next to the Grammys) and just as other, similarly-situated awards break down by category, this one meets that indicia. That said, they should build additional lists for Female vocalist, etc... Montanabw^(talk) 19:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Country Music Association Award for Female Vocalist of the Year and Country Music Association Award for Entertainer of the Year already exist, in pretty much the same state of underdevelopment as this one. I agree that they're all notable and can be improved, rather than deleted.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Montanabw's analysis. Those are notable topics in their own right and could be fleshed out even if they are not yet. Even if one were to think that they should be removed, the correct solution per WP:ATD would be to redirect to the main article, since as the correct names for the awards they are plausible search terms. Regards SoWhy 21:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a perfectly normal case of WP:SPLITLIST of which we have thousands. The award is notable, ergo the SALs on the individual awards are notable, this is a long established practise when the main article can't contain all award information. And it does not, the premise that all the information given in the article can be found in Country Music Association Awards is incorrect. As for the NOTDIR#7 argument, that's merely a matter of writing a lead to start with. — Sam Sailor 00:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aranye Maniac Killer Mystery

Aranye Maniac Killer Mystery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An amateur short film posted to YouTube with no coverage in non-self-published or independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. This is one of several articles by an SPA account promoting the same individuals. (E.g. Sudhu Tomari (Telefilm 2013) and Manab (Music Video 2016)), — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources to meet WP:NFP have not been found; delete per WP:DEL8. — Sam Sailor 17:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not an amateur short film or non-self-published. its a independent short bengali film its not to promot anyone, theirs many publicity and talk about the film, its film made from golden life institute, only notability in their place, wikipedia is for collect information's from around the world not to delete genuine articles without no reason, only they found their reliable source, which is impossible for an independent maker or real talented peoples which fail for rich coverage. the articles all source are in google, the short film are exits & all characters, credits are exits with those reference. so i request to not delete my contribution without check the articles ref, & cast, credits, youtube source. (Sudhu Tomari (Telefilm 2013) and Manab (Music Video 2016)) theirs are so many many articles, pages which neither have any source or single publicity, or in reliable sites, or non of many peoples didnt hear about them abut they still in wikipedia. why dont nominated them? -- Yudishina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudisina (talk • contribs) 18:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Yudisina (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

  For an answer to your question, please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep My articles are all 100% exits, and still have reference, CactusWriter you only nominate my articles for delete, those are notible in my city Jhargram. I also seen many articles in wikipedia without any proper reference. but still exits.. dont make it revenge. wikipedia is for everyone can write about things which exits, and genuine true. so Request to keep my articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudisina (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Yudisina (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

  Have a read on the essay Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability; everyone can write on Wikipedia, yes, but we can not write about everything. — Sam Sailor 16:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Discussion No reason for deletion my creation page, its a short film. please check the reference of others source in the article page. "Independent Film Maker News and Resources". Gasslight.com. the film is exits & its a low budget short film. many of others sites have reference not only same user page. wikipedia is for collect information's from all around the world. there is no rules i violate. i only contribute a film page. which i request to save and keep not to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudisina (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 February 2017 Yudisina (UTC)

  I have looked at each of the references posted (and searched for others). Not a single one of these meet encyclopedic standards for "significant coverage by independent reliable sources." For example, the one you list above is a non-notable webblog that advertises itself for self-promotion by amateur filmmakers. All of the others are self-submitted promotional websites, including a self-published poetry blog that has nothing to do with film and a self-published advertising website. Lack of coverage is not unusual for an amateur film that the article states was made through a student workshop and released on YouTube. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion No, NOT SELF PUBLISHED. User:CactusWriter Please can you cut the word,?? I say clearly true nothing lie. Im publishing this article as a contributer coz i am a manager of the movie production, And i am the one who reporting a fake user page in wikipedia to make wikipedia clean & better. No one here self published their self, the non-notable webblog published our film for them self not we or any of our member telling for published. if not believe, then go ask the owner of site. [17], You pointing all sites, blogs are self published? how can anyone can submitted like that, CAN YOU PUBLISHED?? Just published a single reference in any self blog or what you call self prompt sites. They are promoted by their self, you can or google the actor Rajkumar Patra, not famous or could be no coverage in news but well known, please google him. he is in the film, Its not enough? .. so we have 100 of reference & well notable. I Have collect some sites.. Please check - [[18]] (THIS IS NOT SELF PUBLISHED DATABASE, ITS ALSO WRITE ON WIKIPEDIA]], the film also listed here. "Images, Stock Photos & Illustrations". Bigstock. (BIG STOCK ITS ALSO IN WIKIPEDIA) "Durable Rajkumar Looking To Sun Hd 2011 Back Case/cover For Ipad Mini/mini 2". "Rajkumar Black White Pillowcases Custom Pillow Case Cushion Cover 20 X 30 Inch Two Sides"., (AMAZON IS NOT SELF PUBLISHED) Icche_Dana ON WIKIPEDIA ALREADY ALSO "Rajkumar Patra". LoveThisPic., "Rajkumar Patra Photoshoot 2015". CGfrog. 23 March 2015., "HD Wallpapers - wallpapers for your desktop - hdwallpapercenter.net". www.hdwallpapercenter.net., "Men Long Hair Styles". Cute Hairstyles., "メンズファッションの前に「清潔感」 – 雅弘ナビ". www.alterazionitango.com (in Japanese)., "Choosing the Best Men's Long Hairstyles Hairstyle Trends ItsHairStyles.Com". itshairstyles.com.

I Checked and submit those reference, non of ref is self published. there lots of 100 of web reference have. Please note- those ref are for the actor who acted & directed alos in Sudhu_Tomari_(Telefilm_2013) Which also nominate for delectation with lack of news reference. Those are tele/short films which doesn't need to news coverage. But those films are locally popular & also screening. So your make an so many excuse to delete articles. Already my hard writing one article deleted. (SAD) So please check the film article once again before deleted. Thats my request to you & editors and the Administer. Aranye is low budget movie but its has rights to be in wikipedia. And also i say again there are many wikis on wikipedia which have lack of reference or removed from news pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudisina (talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yudsina, please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. None of the links you have posted above are independent reliable sources. Note that IMDb is appropriate as an external link, but it is not generally considered a reliable source. (See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb) Big Stock is a user-submitted website (for example, see here). All the advertising/promotion websites are user-submitted and are not reliable sources for the purpose of an encyclopedic article. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion All are not reliable? but all are have reliability, all are in media & viral. the film is exits, its not the thing that is is fake article. Okay, i agree with you that the film had no coverage like that, but not agree that you always said self published & not reliable film. i say before those films are locally promoted & well know like in Jhargram. you editors are making excuse to delete my hard writing articles. User:CactusWriter please give the links where you want to see the review of the film? remember we are bengali industry in india. i knw what news you taling about. like news papers, and times of india! right?? but i say before my articles are about low budget films, there no need to promote by self published on news papers. I requested to try to save one of my article contribution. please brief me a little in west bengal which news paper coverage is good to reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudisina (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Low-budget (about $1000) amateur production with unknown actors looking for free publicity. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong Argument Keep as per, it was low budget but not amateur, the film with good concept and story, one actor was known for previous works, i already said but i dont know why my argument are ignored? objection is for that no one actors are looking for publicity. the film is already added in imdb, & also in several web directory's. Locally know short film not needed any big publicity, just a short film. a normal delectation discussion running for 7 days but its past ten days, no discussion will be taken? articles are still have, Once again i deeply request to keep my article coz its dont have any reason for delectation, could be in future we can get many source for the meantime save and keep Aranye_Maniac_Killer_Mystery_(2014_Short_Film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudisina (talk • contribs) 10:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources in the article are actually reliable, and the film fails WP:NFILM. Notability requires coverage in independent reliable sources, which I could not find any. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong Argument Keep, sources in the article are actually from unreliable but keep as per the film is locally notable & not been promoted in news papers, but none of are self published, first time shooting short film in jhargram forest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudisina (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sankaradeva Nethralaya, Guwahati

Sri Sankaradeva Nethralaya, Guwahati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable organization; a search for sources resulted mostly in passing mentions in news sites or unreliable sources such as company listing. I couldn't find enough significant reliable coverage specifically about the organization. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable organisation. The then prime minister of India Narasimha Rao inaugurated it in 1995. In year 2004, the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh awarded it with the title centre of excellence. Please check news link : And The Telegraph is a top newspaper in India. So you can trust the above link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:B10E:BED1:DE94:C37E:E6E0:282 (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The institution also features in the Government of India, official website of North east council, after being eligible for financial assistances. Check it here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:B10C:2858:8AB2:A337:8192:446 (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, said sources didn't appear in my search. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If prime minister of India visits a institution, and awards it with the title CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE, then ofcourse it is a notable organisation. It is also mentioned in Govt of India website for North East council. So, I hope the article won't remain in article for deletion list anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatabuz1997 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check the above comments and go through the links provided. And after that, please let me know by replying if the article will be still deleted, or what will be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAnt1997 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @BlackAnt1997: Please refrain from prematurely closing deletion discussions unless the snowball clause applies or if the nominator explicitly withdraws the nomination. Also, articles creators and editors who have participated in deletion discussions are discouraged from closing nominations early, except for the latter case. In this case, I did not withdraw the nomination, and although I may have added a comment that sounded like that was the intention, it was not my intention. In any case, let this AfD run its course and let consensus decide if the references you mentioned are enough to establish notability. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for letting me know. I am new to adding articles to Wikipedia, so I thought I can also close the afD, as I had given links and reasons why not to delete the article. That was a mistake, I am sorry for that.

I am again adding the links for your consideration.

The prime minister of India visited it in the year 2004,and awarded with the title centre of excellence, as per the The Telegraph newspaper. Here is the link : https://www.telegraphindia.com/1041122/asp/guwahati/story_4032596.asp

If a prime minister can visit and award a title to a institution, then no one can claim that it is not a notable institution. Isn't it?

Also, The North east council of Government of India, provided financial assistance to the institution, and also written about the organisation in their official website. Here is the link : http://necouncil.gov.in/index3.asp?sslid=130&subsublinkid=206

The above website ends with gov.in, which means it is regulated by government of India. So it is a reliable source.

There are many other websites and reference which mentions about the institution. But I only added the above two as these are the most reliable ones. I hope these will be sufficient. If you need more, ask for it.

• Delete. Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Please Cite Reasons It is a notable charitable organisation, famous in india, which also has branches all over india, one of the sister branch is Sankara Nethralaya. so before deletion plz cite a reason. AdmWiki (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment from a sockpuppet account. --Yamla (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE I don't have anything more to say! Just would like to repeat the earlier comments again.

The prime minister of India visited it in the year 2004,and awarded with the title centre of excellence, as per the The Telegraph newspaper. Here is the link : https://www.telegraphindia.com/1041122/asp/guwahati/story_4032596.asp

If a prime minister can visit and award a title to a institution, then no one can claim that it is not a notable institution. Isn't it?

Also, The North east council of Government of India, provided financial assistance to the institution, and also written about the organisation in their official website. Here is the link : http://necouncil.gov.in/index3.asp?sslid=130&subsublinkid=206

The above website ends with gov.in, which means it is regulated by government of India. So it is a reliable source.

Also, Sankara Nethralaya situated in Chennai, India is a sister institution of it. There are many Nethralaya in India, run by a single charitable organisation. This article is about one of those Nethralaya, situated in Northeastern Indian city of Guwahati.

Nethralaya means the house of the Eye. These Nethralayas are eyecare hospitals and institutions all over India!!

Being the creator of this article, I would like to urge the administrator to do the decision of either keeping or deleting this article as soon as possible. Already about 10days have passed. I think its better to close this discussion soon. BlackAnt1997 (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Also, the creator of the article has been involved in sock puppet edits here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article fail to meet notability criteria for cooperates/organisations as per WP:CORPDEPTH. In fact the article is reading like an advertisement /in promotional tone. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  08:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Marcus

Erin Marcus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable doctor who lacks RSes. Writes for Huffington Post blogs, but could not possibly meet GNG. DGG and SwisterTwister, this is a good article to compare with AfD at Kevin Pho. Delta13C (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. not yet notable; none of the refs are substantially about her. The case for an article here here is much weaker than for Pho. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as thank you for the ping, everything here is unconvincing and complete with the AAAS because it's not a genuine Fellow, only for a specific section. Simply too soon, SwisterTwister talk 01:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This is looks to me like canvassing, whatever the merits of the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as I try to see as many such articles as possible, it's just a question of whether I see it earlier or later. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking more of the other editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as appears non notable. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not arguing either way, but I'm not sure this is quite as clear cut as the above commentators note. She is one of 5/7 authors on reports of a clinical trial of bevacizumab (Avastin) which got 724 & 237 citations per GS.[19] Her single-authored opinion article "The silent epidemic—the health effects of illiteracy" in NEJM (2006) got 109 citations, and she's one of three authors on a study of informed consent & illiteracy (2013) which has 55 citations. There are also multiple pieces by her in several US newspapers/magazines eg, NYT, Huffington Post [20], The Atlantic [21]. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. When nominating editor writes, "Writes for Huffington Post blogs, but could not possibly meet GNG" as rationale for deletion, s/he should know by doing due diligence that the MD/MPH also writes for NYTimes, The Atlantic and has published a number of highly cited journal articles. She's also cited in a number of books per Google Books. She is most frequently published under "Erin N. Marcus". Hmlarson (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- could be a pass under WP:AUTHOR? Google books preview returns some citations to her articles: link. Some awards are listed, so in combination there appears to be some claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not agree that she passes WP:AUTHOR, as her scientific work is not cited any more than many hundreds of other researchers. As far as I can tell, there is a paucity of secondary sources discussing her work, which leads me to believe that there is not enough coverage of her to produce even a basic biography suitable for WP. (CC K.e.coffman & Hmlarson.) -Delta13C (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That was apparent when you nominated the article. The purpose of an AFD is for more editors to provide input. Hmlarson (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I commented on the point of WP:AUTHOR since it was not cited in my nomination. -Delta13C (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a figure of public interest who has contributed to a number of widely read sources. I do not agree with those who think it is "too soon" or with the narrow academic criteria put forward by some of the above contributors. As the article is expanded, the case for "keep" will become increasingly clear. The New York Times attribution "Dr. Erin N. Marcus is a general internist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine" is sufficient for me.--Ipigott (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Ipigott. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There has been canvassing for this BLP [22]. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In fact, project notifications are in fact allowed and the standards for this state as such. As for the article, this is still a clear delete in my past comment because "interesting figure" is not what satisfies our policies and "narrow academic criteria" is certainly not the case because we ourselves have established WP:PROF is in fact the best coherent standard we have, selecting only the best academics and she's simply not satisfying it. Simply because the NYT mentioned she was an associate professor means nothing for us because it's not only a simple announcement, but an associate professor is in fact not actually tenured, instead an occasionally active professorhence not a major figure as stated above and also not satisfying our standards. If she was a major figure, there would exist actual substance for it, and like in the past, it would show she's a major figure in education, not the case here, and the Keep comments here above have not substantied themselves with the confirmation needed in substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Erin Marcus is not a top-level scholar based on her publication record, which can be evaluated here. A quick scan of related scholars on that site reveal many that have over 10k citations who are also at her Uni, and these people do not have WP pages; Marcus has 774 citations. It is a complete distortion to view this assistant professor as a notable individual. She lacks compelling coverage in third-party sources and does not pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. -Delta13C (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Off to a good start in a very highly cited field of research but, as yet WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - Not seeing enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and do not believe they pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. If she was the sole author of some of the cited articles, she would qualify, imo, but not as one of several authors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON, Xxanthippe. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Janney

Matthew Janney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NRU - hasn't played in the World Rugby Sevens Series and WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Georgia is now considered by the World Rugby as being a High Performance Union (HPU) and all players of a HPU are presumed notable as per WP:NRU but it gives an outdated definition of HPU. There is a discussion going on here as to the best way of modifying WP:NRU to reflect this change in definition of HPU. --Domdeparis (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Having played sevens rugby for Georgia isn't enough of a threshold for me to presume him notable, and I've been unable to locate reliable secondary sources in which he is the subject. Happy to change my opinion if anyone can find some appropriate sources (and I assume some sources may be in the Georgian language). -- Shudde ^talk 20:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree with you if we presumed that Georgia is not a High Performance Union but according to World Rugby it is now. Any player from a HPU who has represented his country is presumed notable according to WP:NRU the problem is that the definition of HPU in wikipedia is different from the definition of HPU by the governing body. Do we stay with the outdated criteria in Wikipedia or are we going to go with the Governing Body of rugby? Domdeparis (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the inclusion of HPU countries for the NRU was because those were believed to be countries where one would expect an international player to achieve coverage in multiple sources (Australia, England, NZ etc). That World Rugby has expanded their definition of HPU doesn't mean that suddenly we can expect more coverage of Georgian rugby players than there was five years ago. Regardless, NRU is only really intended as a quick way to determine whether a subject would probably meet GNG. In the case of this article, I don't think it does. -- Shudde ^talk 19:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HPUs are dynamic and as they change, so do the guidelines. In my mind, the idea is if the sport reaches HPU standards, then the competition is of a high standard and in turn it will receive coverage. I dont at all agree that we only consider sources in the three countries you listed - they are all English. I think this is why we have the presumption. I highly doubt many editors speak both English and Georgian. Its not reasonable to expect someone to easily find sources in non-English, and certainly non-Latin, languages. The community of editors has established this standard and we should respect it. They included the HPU term fully knowing it could and does change. If this were a subject from Scotland or Wales, I could see a show cause request where sources need to be found. However, due to the foreign nature of the subject and the unlikelihood of being able to find online sources, I think a presumption should be respected. RonSigPi (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the criteria were written with the belief that the definition of an HPU would change; nor that if it did change that would prompt an increase in sources on new those countries and their players. The traditional HPU countries (England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, New Zealand, South Africa, France, Australia, Argentina, Italy, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa etc) have shown us here that an international player will get almost always get reliable independent coverage. That hasn't been established with Georgia, especially with Sevens players who havn't even played in the World Rugby Sevens Series. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that NRU criterion 1 applies only to men's 15-a-side players, not sevens players. -- Shudde ^talk 14:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I know I just commented above defending the presumption and I stand by that. However, I don't think this subject meets the presumption, so it is moot. I don't read it to include Rugby 7s, only the 15 player version. Therefore, no presumption and sources need to be shown. They are not here so delete. RonSigPi (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The criteria are for Rugby Union whether it's a full 15 a side or sevens. Domdeparis (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then I am more than willing to change my suggestion. However, the only mention of sevens is criterion 3. For criterion 2, every competition listed is a 15-a-side competition. For criterion 1, when classifying High performance unions, there is a distinction between HPUs and other nations that have competed in the Rugby World Cup - that is a 15-a-side competition and no mention is made of sevens. To put another way, since a 15-a-side competition is used as a definer I think it only applies to that version. So in my reading, criterion 1 and 2 apply to the men's 15-side game, criterion 3 applies to sevens (both genders), and criterion 4 applies to the women's 15-a-side. RonSigPi (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Janney's relationship with Emma Watson has been well reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.84.111 (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to International Federation of BodyBuilders. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IFBB Best in the World

IFBB Best in the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The first competition by what seems to be a now large and notable organisation, and a quick search shows that large numbers of bodybuilders cite their results at this competition. I think it would be feasible to find more third-party coverage in offline sources. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unreferenced. As written, fails WP:V and WP:N. When refs are added, do ping me and I'll reconsider my argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to International Federation of BodyBuilders. No sources present to support individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Davis (actor)

Tommy Davis (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Apparent vanity article fails WP:NACTOR: lead roles have been in two poorly noted internet productions, roles in major productions limited to background and bit parts. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Gordon

Cam Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable city councillor. Zero sources (other than promotional links). Contested PROD. AusLondonder (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Completely non-notable. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOL#2: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Gordon has been a member of the Minneapolis City Council since 2005 and has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. He's a founder of the Green Party of Minnesota and was one of the earlier Greens to get on the City Council in a major city. As I noted when I requested undeletion, I'm more than willing to source the article. I'm not done yet and haven't gotten to the book references, but I've added about 20 references so far that should demonstrate notability. gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gobonobo (talk · contribs) No he doesn't meet WP:GNG which states an individual is notable if they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Those sources you have added are not significant coverage. They are article about other issues, such as this one, which is a press release from the Humane Society of the United States. It is titled "Minneapolis City Council Votes to Ban Elephant Bullhooks" and mentions Gordon in passing. It is not about Gordon. It's about Minneapolis City Council voting to ban Elephant Bullhooks. Criteria two of WP:NPOL states an individual is only notable "if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'". Gordon does not. AusLondonder (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: I removed the passage about the elephant bullhook ban until we have a better source. However, I invite you to make a determination based on the many other sources that do have significant coverage about Gordon. Here are a few:

• Arola, Brian (April 24, 2013). "Unopposed in Minneapolis city council race, Cam Gordon has 'time to plan'". Twin Cities Daily Planet.
• Brandt, Steve (September 8, 2016). "Minneapolis council member wants aging Glendale homes rehabbed, not replaced". Star Tribune.
• Golden, Erin (May 29, 2016). "Minneapolis may open door to more communal living". Star Tribune.
• McCorquodale, David (October 13, 2009). "Why they keep on winning". Green Pages.

Many of the sources address Gordon and his actions as a councilmember directly and in detail, including legislation that he proposed or authored. His employment equity resolution, for instance, was the first of its kind in the US. I think it is also important to consider that he co-founded a state-level party and is considered the most prominent elected Green Party official in the US. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Minneapolis is a large and internationally prominent enough city to make its city councillors eligible for inclusion under WP:NPOL, and there has been considerable effort to improve the article and its referencing since the nomination was initiated — I'll grant that not all of the references are strong ones (there is still some primary sourcing and some glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things), but there are enough sources in which he's substantively the subject present to clear the bar. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat I completely disagree. Minneapolis is a small city with less than 400,000 inhabitants. There are thousands of cities larger worldwide. In China alone, there are literally hundreds of cities larger than Minneapolis with 105 above the million mark. In India nearly 120 cities, with thousands of councillors between them are larger than Minneapolis. The section at WP:NPOL dealing with local councillors states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" - it makes no mention of automatic inclusion for any city, let alone a city of less than half a million. I would have thought that only the most internationally notable cities like London, Paris, New York, Mumbai, etc would have any claim to automatic inclusion for their councillors. If we said every local councillor (not even just mayors/council leaders) ever elected in history in a city like Minneapolis was automatically notable we would be opening the door to quite possibly hundreds of thousands of new articles. AusLondonder (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between "city that gets its councillors over WP:NPOL #3" and "city that does not get its councillors over NPOL #3" has never been a question of any specific population size cutoff, but of whether or not reliable external sources characterize the city as an alpha, beta or gamma class global city. If they do, then the city councillors are in regardless of whether it has a population of 10 million or just 400,000 — and if they don't, then the city councillors are out, still regardless of population, unless they can be shown as significantly more notable than the norm for city councillors of non-global cities. Go back to Minneapolis and read the second paragraph, particularly the sentence which begins "As an integral link to the global economy, Minneapolis is categorized as a..." Bearcat (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence about Minneapolis being an "integral link" in the global economy sounds like parochial puffery. I am quite certain that in the case of the city meeting an untimely demise the global economy would continue uninterrupted. The city is classified as Beta-. Does that mean that you are suggesting every councillor ever elected to a city council in an alpha to gamma city is automatically notable? AusLondonder (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of a global city is not "the entire world would revert to the Dark Ages if this one city were ever bombed". And yes, the consensus has always been that all alpha, beta or gamma cities qualified (consensus has only just recently deprecated even the "sufficiency" class of sorta-global cities such as Winnipeg, in fact, because they used to get their city councillors in too.) Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per gobonobo. I disagree with Bearcat that the consensus on automatic notability of city council members of "global cities" is that strong - especially beyond the largest well-renowned cities. In this case, the sourcing is strong, and he has been name dropped in several national newsmagazines. The overall quantity of coverage also is above the level of what is expected of a normal city official. --Enos733 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gobonobo. The article is well sourced and Gordon holds a prominent position in city government.--TM 15:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient sourcing exists to establish notability. Lepricavark (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a well researched, thoroughly sourced entry. Topic is obviously notable. It should not be penalized for being overly detailed. If some of the cites are self-published sources then they should be removed. But I am astonished that this entry would even be considered for deletion. It is an asset to wikipedia and valuable to Gordon's constituents and the people of Winnipeg. I think that editors who cite policy should give more detailed reasons why they think a policy applies rather than merely mentioning it. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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