Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 19

< 18 November 20 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internext

Internext (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)

1. No primary/secondary sources; 2. Stub; 3. Non-notable Aftab104 (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable website, Fails NCORP & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 03:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons stated above. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 27 November 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  08:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of proven or alleged pre-Weinstein historical sexual assaults in the entertainment industry

List of proven or alleged pre-Weinstein historical sexual assaults in the entertainment industry (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 seem to be notable; although the string of sexual abuse claims made after the Weinstein claims might be notable, these certainly aren't. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article appears to have been created in response to an editing conflict at 'Casting couch'. As a result, we have a list that appears to be meshing 'casting couch' allegations with broader sexual harassment allegations under a somewhat arbitrary title. Some information here could be incorporated into an article (nb. not list) that deals specifically with the wider, and well reported, issue of sexual harassment in the entertainment industry (thus helping to mitigate some WP:BLP and WP:OR issues), or used to expand the 'Casting couch' article. But it doesn't work in this article, in this form. Eloquai (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is less likely to be deleted: a new Sexual harassment in the entertainment industry article or an expansion of the Casting couch article?Growlies (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of them, if done well. But, the scope of this list (basically, what it includes) is a bit arbitrary. It would probably be ok to create a new article with a similar title, removed pre-Weinstein historical, and possible "alleged" (because there might be BLP violations there), and then include this as a section (as the Weinstein allegations seem to be opening up a new "chapter", per se, in terms of how sexual harassment is dealt with in entertainment). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What subjects like this need are reliable source based articles, not lists. Especially when we include "proven or alleged" in the title. That is troublesome. I am not saying everything needs to be "proven", but we need to base material on reliable sources, and avoid being a tabloid. The "casting couch" phenomenon does seem to relate to some of the sexual harrassment allegations against Weinstien and others, but there are other such allegations of sexual assault and harassment that do not fit into the narrow "have sex to get a part in the film" allegations. I also had a friend who was told she would have to have sex with the director or producer (I don't remember which) to have a chance to audition for a film, this was back around 1970, and she not only refused this offer but instead chose to not go into film at all. The person I know we have an article on her husband, and she is mentioned in that article, but I do not have easily accessable sources to show it. I have heard her tell the story once or twice to a gathering of people, probably about 20 in number, but I do not believe she has ever sought to expose it to the media. Actually the way she tells the story it is meant as a general indicting of the lack of moral fibre in the American film industry, showing a darkness of abuse of power and overly high demands for sex that make it hard to go after specific instances of sexual harrassment. There seems to be a new view since the break of mainstream media exposees of Weinstein in early October 2017, but weather this new climate can really mean that allegations against any individual will be given a fair trial, or if it is that Weinstein fell to this because he was no longer as big a mover in Hollywood as he once was, remains to be seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An indiscriminate list of information. We've got enough coverage of Weinstein in other articles; stick to the facts and leave the gossip to the tabloid newspapers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, prior, current and future sexual misconduct in politics, entertainment, the big corporation at the office complex, the tiny coffee shop on the corner, etc. are serious issues. The Franensteined title here, however, is not a discrete, notable topic. What is an "allegation"? Are we looking at when the incident allegely occurred or when the allegation was made? What is the date for "pre-Weinstein"? What is the "entertainment industry"? A manager at a video store was charged with "indecent assault" in 1985. If that isn't included, why not? If it is, this is going to be one hell of a long list. We don't have sources describing this topic, we have sources describing individual assaults and accusations that we are grouping together in a category we have constructed. That is not encyclopedic. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair to the creator of this list, it was created in response to something I said in a discussion about recent additions to casting couch. The choice of title is probably my fault. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification: While I cannot speak for anyone else, I am here to fix what I see as a problem (having and article that we shouldn't have). I am not here to fix blame (whose "fault" it is). Unless there is intentional disruption or serious competency problems (which I don't see here), there's no "fault". - SummerPhDv2.0 05:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I think a list including "alleged" sexual assaults is always going to be a WP:BLP issue. Last week I would have voted to delete it on that basis, but last week I was not aware of Me Too (hashtag). It feels like this is a lost cause. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:44, 26 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla Roadster (2020)

Tesla Roadster (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As with the Tesla Semi, this is an instance that is specifically addressed by the policy WP:CRYSTAL. Product announcemnts, even from reliable sources, are are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Everything we know about this future product comes entirely from self-published information by the product vendor. Aside from a raft of extraordinary claims, a complete specification has not been published, so it impossible for independent sources to even speculate as to whether this future product is at all feasible. Even if we had detailed specifications, and even if a prototype had been independently tested under conditions not stage managed by the product vendor, it is impossible to predict whether it can actually be mass produced at the claimed level of performance. Obvious objections are addressed by allusion to unseen future manufacturing processes. Reliable sources describe this as "showmanship"[1] and "fueling hype and excitement in a way that only Musk can"[2]. Policy clearly says we do not immediately create a new article in response to a splashy media unveiling. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • These quotes from the New York Times and Greentech Media are taken out of context and represented in a misleading way. Neither article questions the feasibility of the 2020 Tesla Roadster’s advertised specs, or questions whether it will be produced. The words “showmanship” and “hype” are used in a positive, complimentary way. Deepdeepocean (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose / keep we have articles on concept cars, which are paper products. The specs for the concept cars are pure dream material. However, the Roadster 2 is a real prototype car, which actually drives around. So, these cars exist already, and the concept of the Roadster 2 meets WP:GNG with widespread coverage in the press over several years. The article has several years worth of references. The physical cars were revealed recently, but the news coverage about the car has been going on for many years. The multiple years worth of coverage, prior to its unveiling shows enduring notability, found in multiple reliable sources. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unlike many future products, this one was publicly previewed, with test rides, and reviews for the actual prototypes have been given, this is a physical object that has been evaluated by non-employees, some of them actual journalists. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment will the nominator be nominating for deletion the Porsche Mission E article soon? Or most of the articles in Category: Concept cars. The rationale behind the deletion nomination would mean almost every concept car article should be deleted. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, please read WP:OSE. It's a violation of several policies to demand another editor take any action. See WP:NOTMANDATORY, for example. Wikipedia is built one tiny piece at a time. We each make our own tiny corner of Wikipedia better without having to be held responsible for boatloads of other articles. The kind of personal and confrontational tone contained in statements like "will the nominator be nominating for deletion the blah blah blah" is a violation of the civility policy and assumption of good faith. Do not invite other edtiors to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. This AfD decision hinges on the merits of the article, not other stuff.
    Second, a concept car is not an announced future product. They are self-contained works that serve a finite purpose: generally to showcase some new technology or styling idea. Sometimes just to make a statement about the company. Concept cars are not future products; they exist now. The crystal ball policy does not apply to them. It's true that sometimes concept cars are the ancestors (usually distant ones) of production cars, but we don't write articles about a hypothetical production car suggested by a concept shown at a show. Neither the Roadster 2 or the Semi are concept cars. They are future products that were announced just days ago, and the 'What Wikipedia is not' policy has a carefully written section on future products which is unmistakably aimed at exactly these cases. (Since you brought it up, that Porsche Mission E article is crystal ball crap and it should go, but I'll leave that as an exercise for others to deal with.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This car physically exists, and works, so it is something that is a "thing". It's publicly revealed, and publicly trialed. It is like any other public object, it has coverage from its existence. Instead of treating it as a future product (without actual public physical hardware) it can be considered a physical object that has been publicly seen. It still meets notability requirements as such a thing. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Publicly trialed"? What are you talking about? Source please. This car has not been tested. I hope you don't mean these theatrics. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is largely a promotional hype at this point. Reliable sources essentially just stated that the announcement happened at this time and place, and Tesla (Musk) described some features, shared some numbers and made future projections. Nobody could possibly verify most of this information. A short section in the Tesla article should suffice. Retimuko (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see two major categories of arguments to keep: "we do it for other stuff" and "the topic is hot and the article is popular". Regarding the first one. Let's not bring up other stuff. If some other articles exist in violation of the policies, it does not justify this one. We might discuss the other ones as well, but not here. Regarding popularity. Hot news and marketing hype might be popular, but orthogonal to the purpose of encyclopedia. We would like to establish and maintain a reputation of being a reliable source. Creating a popular article based on hype might be damaging to such long term objectives. Retimuko (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with you that if another article needs to be deleted that is immaterial to the reasons for deletion here, but what is the standard you are using from WP:DEL that you are using to justify why this article must be deleted? Is it a copyright violation? Is it patent nonsense? (aka literally smashing the keyboard or pure fiction) Does it have no reliable sources to confirm details in this article? Does it fail WP:NOTE?
      I don't see any reason given for deletion here. There is room for critics to voice their opinions (also subject to WP:RS and not something purely at random). You could perhaps very weakly suggest it is a content fork, but the fact is this article represents what is a new vehicle and only vaguely has anything to do with the previous incarnation. Even then, if it is a fork you are arguing about, it should be a merge and not a delete. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason was clearly stated: product announcements are not appropriate encyclopedic content. See WP:CRYSTAL. Relevant quote: "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Retimuko (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that in this context that policy doesn't apply, nor does this article fail the specific additional guidelines that have been adopted for new automotive models. I would suggest to re-read WP:NOTE and WP:DP specifically as that is the governing policy for this project. What you say is "not appropriate encyclopedic content" is not policy on Wikipedia. If you were relying strictly off of the press release and only the press release, it would be problems with WP:PRIMARY, but even that isn't the case here. Your standard is absurdly high for what it is that you are insisting as a reliable source and I really can't see what would possibly even pass the muster of whatever it is that might make this into an article worthy of keeping if it was strictly up to you. There also seems to be zero effort here to actually work to a consensus or suggest alternatives. You just want this article deleted and salted to ensure it will never be written. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
> Robert Horning "There also seems to be zero effort here to actually work to a consensus or suggest alternatives. You just want this article deleted and salted to ensure it will never be written."
What sort of misrepresentation of my words and assumption of bad faith was this? I wish Tesla the best of luck and want to see this article in due course and about an actual product. Currently half of the article is in the future tense. I cited the policy regarding merging into a larger topic (Tesla article) and suggested this in my very first message here. How can you say that I don't suggest alternatives? If we just keep the facts, it will be just a short section, and likely stay that way for another year or two. Retimuko (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest an alternative then. Under what possible conditions would you consider that this article ought to be kept? When the Tesla Roadster II goes in front of an independent reviewer to tear it apart and can individually show each part? When an academic peer reviewed article detailing the specs of this vehicle appears in some formal journal? I'm not seeing the standard here.
If you wanted to have this merged into the general Tesla article, then that should have been your position instead of deletion. I'm also suggesting that your interpretation of policy is in error here and doesn't apply to what is the case here. I've long felt that mergers were akin to deletion anyway, but until the above statement you didn't even suggest merger was an option in your view.
We can disagree on that point and seek arbitration on that point by arguing specific policy points, but my assertion is that since this is an announced vehicle showing up in annual and quarterly reports for this company rather than rumor and speculation that it could be a vehicle (which would be a crystal ball issue), your assertion no longer applies. The assertion that only one source of information exists is also in error, even though performance specs haven't been "independently tested". Qualifications about the source of that information can and should be put into the article as editorial issues and not a part of the decision as to if this article needs to be kept or not. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Did anybody check the statistics of that article? [3] This article has more than 15.000 viewers per day and belongs to the most popular articles in Wikipedia at the moment. Even a popular article like "cat" has less viewers. [4] Who could have interest to delete such an article? Wega14 (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Easily meets GNG. — JFG talk 15:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tesla may not manage to manufacture it in great numbers by 2020, but this is a significant vehicle. See https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/17/tesla-roadster-electric-supercar-elon-musk-fast BUT, the article needs work; there are far too many citations, some containing incorrect information. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We create smartphone articles when they are announced, not when they go on sale. Same concept applies here. It's not a concept as of now, as a few of them were manufactured to exhibit to the media. Darius robin (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The car exists. In a worst case scenario all that would have to change is the description of whether the car went into sales production or failed to go to market. MartinezMD (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without going into tedious detail, the thing these keep arguments have in common is exceptionalism and special pleading. Is there such a thing as WP:ATA bingo? There should be. No matter how much we might like Tesla or how unique the company may be, we can't go on lowering the bar for them. The same standards should be applied to all products. And the Roadster 2, as claimed, does not verifiably exist. We saw a car, and we heard a lot of self-serving hype about it. The surest way to keep from being bamboozled is to apply the same standards we would to a new model of washing machine or new soft drink. If half of Musk's boasts pan out, they hardly need Wikipedia selling itself out to save the company or help sell cars. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This car does verifiably exist in prototype form. "We saw a car" (and coverage of that car in secondary sources) is enough to verify that Tesla has a Tesla Roadster prototype. Your concerns or questions about the vehicle's promised performance don't (and can't) negate the fact that the car does exist. Whether a rollout is enough to confirm existence is irrelevant and academic anyway, since we also have independent confirmation that the vehicle exists and is operational, including video. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + semi-protect, or Move back to Draft:. Apologies to all if it was moved over to article space too soon. The article already existed at Draft:Tesla Roadster 2, and will exist in main article space either now, or sometime soon: the question is whether the article was migrated too soon—in which case it wants moving back to Draft:Telsa Roadster (2020). The whole "unveil" appears to have clouded and confused the issue, although we now have a CC-BY-SA photo, and some hard numbers to cite. As for quality aspect, it is getting 15k+ views per day, which means a good proportion of enthusiastic IP edits, lowering the quality of article—the solution to that is semi-protect, not deletion. —Sladen (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Revolutionary product that puts gas cars to shame. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't vaporware from an unknown company, it is a notable product announced by a notable company. StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is hardly distinguishable from a notable vaporware from a notable company at this point. Retimuko (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Active development is being done to bring this car to production status, many automotive outlets have stories on this. Nightfury 22:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an announced vehicle. The standard for automotive models is that such articles don't pass muster until it has been formally announced, but that threshold has been more than passed and then some. This has numerous reliable sources that easily passes WP:NOTE and a physical prototype that can be touched and operated. This is not a mere concept but something going into formal production and orders are being taken. If this was speculation about a vehicle that was just rumors or an off-hand remark by a senior executive at the company, I'd completely support the deletion of this article. At it stands though, a formal reveal of the vehicle has happened, reporters from multiple organizations and even private individuals have actually driven in this car, and it is very notable. It sounds as though the proposer for this AfD wants a much higher standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.... like perhaps multiple peer-reviewed academic journal articles about this vehicle first or perhaps something even more substantial than that. I really don't know the extreme to which they are looking, but the standard for any other automobile model announced by any other manufacturer ought to be the case here rather than trying to dump on Tesla as this appears to be right now. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no persuasive reason to delete this article. Lepricavark (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What's the point of having to delete this article? Once we get the finalized statistics we would have to rewrite the Wikipedia page by then. Ecks Dey (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is precedent. The article for the Tesla Model 3 was created the day after the car was unveiled, same as the 2020 Tesla Roadster. That car has now been delivered to over 250 customers.[1] Also, journalists and members of the public have taken filmed test rides in the 2020 Tesla Roadster.[2] At most, skepticism should be directed toward the claimed specs for the car, not the existence or notability of the car itself. Deepdeepocean (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong keep - This is a new vehicle type that has been formally announced, debuted as a working prototype, and received substantial coverage in numerous secondary sources. Working manufacturer prototypes by themselves can be sufficiently notable to warrant their own page, even if the vehicle never reaches production status. Nothing about this article/subject represents the kind of future event, speculation or rumor that WP:CRYSTAL cautions against. The second-gen Tesla Roadster now exists in prototype form and the event of its announcement has already occurred. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see its encyclopedic notability at this point, regardless of whether it enters production or not. I suggest, constructively and respectfully, that the AfD nominator re-read and try to better understand WP:CRYSTAL before declaring topics like this a clear violation of it. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG/RS, definitely not a CRYSTAL, if only for the coverage so far. South Nashua (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball clause I am invoking WP:SNOWBALL. The almost unanimous view is that the article should be kept. The user who nominated the argument for deletion cited WP:CRYSTALBALL, but that policy supports keeping the article: “Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate.” This is a long article about a newly revealed product that includes information from independent analysts, not just product announcement information. Moreover, the user nominating the deletion seems to motivated by their personal speculation (not based on evidence) that the product announcement is deliberately deceptive and part of a secret plan by the company. That does not seem to be an appropriate reason to nominate an article for deletion. It would seem to violate WP:NOTFORUM. Plus, even if this speculation is true, then surely the article is all the more notable. If any reliable source believes the announcement is part of a secret plan to deceive investors, include that in the article. Deepdeepocean (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
— Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I suggest you read Wikipedia:Snowball clause more carefully, as well as WP:Assume good faith. You clearly did not read Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. If you had read WP:BADNAC, the very first thing listed is "The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved". You already !voted above. You have made numerous arguments bqaed on well known fallacies and I suggest this is something you should step away from until you've had more experience. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

To Deepdeepocean for attempting to NAC an AfD they had !voted in, and to Dennis Bratland for reverting an inappropriate early closure without asking an an uninvolved administrator to do so, as BADNAC ifself asserts. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow Keep I was going to sit this one out as self- evident and because I had discussed this with the nom on the Talk Page about his concerns, but as the badnac fell through, here I am. The above del !Vote doesn't quite make sense, if anything, that person is advocating chopping the article down to size, not deletion. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1042449
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=lAQGBxtLSWU
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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exinda

Exinda (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 extremely small and non notable company--the references are mostly just mentions, with some short notices, and a little PR. None of them provide a basis for an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is probably relevant: WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 25. Note that in the meantime, the article may no longer meet the since then more stringent requirements for disclosure of paid contributors. Indeed, User:Hass2009, who authored the second recreation of the article deleted under WP:CSD#G12, was an employee of the company at that time. That being said, the company appears to have been recently acquired. As I supported the recreation process through DRV in 2009, I won't !vote in this discussion, but point out that notability was discussed and deemed sufficient to permit recreation in 2009. MLauba (Talk) 13:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
as I read that rather confusing DelRev, it was decided that since the basis for previous deletions was copyvio, that this should not prevent re-creation from a non-copyvio stub, and that an afd to discuss other factors could be held subsequently. There was no decision there about possible notability. We should have done this afd a lot earlier. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- corporate spam on an company with no indications of notability or significance. Promo content includes:
  • "In November 2014, Exinda released updates to its Network Orchestrator product. The updates included integrated captive portal policies, adaptive response quotas, and HTTP caching!" Etc.
WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH fail. Delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no exclamation mark in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I personally don't view articles about companies as "spam" as some sort of immediate default. If one feels that content regarding the company's updates in the article serves as advertising, why not remove the two sentences, rather than the entire article? North America1000 01:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  I've reviewed the DRV and skimmed WP:BEFORE <insert>the WP:BEFORE D1 snippets</insert> and the sources in the article, and I see nothing substantive here that is relevant for AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Solomon, Howard (2010-07-21). "Quad CPUs gives Exinda WAN optimization a kick". IT World Canada. International Data Group. Archived from the original on 2017-11-20. Retrieved 2017-11-20.

      The article notes:

      When chipmakers unveil new CPUs, appliance manufacturers are quick to take advantage of the improved performance.

      That includes Exinda Networks, which has stuffed Intel’s latest Xeon quad processor into its new 10060-series WAN optimization device to claim a four-fold increase in throughput over its previous leading appliance.

      Officially headquartered in Andover, Mass., but based in Toronto, Exinda released the new unit on Tuesday along with version 5.5 of ExOS, the software that actually runs the appliances.

      ...

      One thing Exinda has going against it is its size. The company, by Suitor’s admission, isn’t as well known as other pure-play WAN optimization companies such as Blue Coat Systems Inc. and Riverbed Technology Inc. – which, according to Kerravala, hold at least half of the market. Other WAN optimization makers include Cisco Systems Inc. and Juniper Networks Inc.

      Bojan Simic, principal analyst at Boston-based TRAC Research, who was briefed on the announcement, said the new appliance lets Exinda compete better against Cisco and Riverbed.

      What he noticed is that most Exinda models can be bought with bandwidth management not application acceleration, or together on one platform. That gives purchases flexibility, he said. Meanwhile Riverbed and Blue Coat still sell WAN optimization appliances separately from bandwidth management, he said. The Exinda pricing “should resonate well with some end users,” he added.

      This article provides commentary from principal analyst Bojan Simic of TRAC Research.
    2. Lawson, Stephen (2007-11-25). "Wanted: A Network to Match a Company's Growth". PC World. Archived from the original on 2017-11-20. Retrieved 2017-11-20.

      The article notes:

      While investigating server consolidation, Barry was introduced to Exinda Networks, an Australian vendor of WAN optimization and application acceleration gear. GEI set out to solve its latency problem and now has Exinda appliances in nine of its sites that already have MPLS connectivity. Ultimately, the company will probably install twice that many, Barry said. The devices have slashed transfer times by 30 percent to 40 percent, he said.

      The market is full of WAN optimization products, but many are designed for large enterprises. GEI chose Exinda partly because it cost less than alternatives such as Packeteer or Riverbed, Barry said. He's not alone, Forrester's Whiteley said. The first wave of a network technology is usually geared toward large enterprises, and WAN optimization is now in its second phase, so vendors such as Exinda are going after smaller customers that are more sensitive to price and want a product that's sized right for their business, he said.

      Another highlight of Exinda's product is that it can deliver detailed information about how GEI's network is being used, Barry said. This became more important with MPLS, because with the new network, all the offices share a common entry point to the Internet, he said. It showed Barry's team what kinds of traffic were going through that link so they could block non-work applications, such as Internet radio, that got in the way. The visibility is also providing baseline information about network load so the IT department can make a case for more bandwidth if it's needed as a result of data-center consolidation, he said.

    3. Smith, Tom (2007-05-24). "The Salesforce.com Effect Comes To Interop". InformationWeek. Archived from the original on 2017-11-20. Retrieved 2017-11-20.

      The article notes:

      In its 22-year history, the Interop trade show has been synonymous with networking, and this year's exhibitors are true to that heritage. But there's a recurring, software-oriented theme from many of the vendors I met with: the impact of Salesforce.com on the networking business.

      Most recent case in point: Exinda Networks, a manufacturer of WAN optimization systems (the kinds of systems that are in abundance at this event) that used the show to take a page from Salesforce.com's book. It's offering software to manage its appliances on a hosted, Salesforce-like model, and noting along the way how well the hosted model works, both for the customer and the vendor. Exinda can see the issue from both sides of the equation; as CEO Con Nikolouzakis notes in an interview, Exinda uses Salesforce.com "extensively" in its own organization.

      Exinda calls its hosted management system Service Delivery Point. The software reports on key applications, performance measures and resource utilization, all via a Salesforce-borrowed interface that can be accessed from a Web browser, so an administrator can perform needed functions from literally anywhere an Internet connection is available. Customers can also license the software for internal hosting if that's their preference. Exinda's own pitch notes that the hosted model "eliminates the cost, risk and complexity of implementing a traditional centralized management system."

    4. Terzievski, Kire (2005-08-30). "Five network maintenance tools tested". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2017-11-20. Retrieved 2017-11-20.

      The article notes:

      Exinda is a Melbourne-based company focusing on packet shaping, much like Packeteer. The Exinda unit is aimed at small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and enterprise markets but only offers a 100Mb throughput whereas the Packeteer scales right up to 1Gb. Exinda does have other units starting from 2Mb up to 100Mb, and it promises a 1Gb unit in the near future.

      ...

      With the 4700 you can see which applications, hosts, and conversations are consuming bandwidth. The top 10 for all the above can be easily obtained so troubleshooting is made easier and you can even drill down as far as finding out what URLs hosts are going to. There are options to check to see that a remote site is reachable from your network and you can schedule reports to be sent automatically.

    5. Guan, Lilia (2007-07-10). "NetWorld defends drop by Exinda". CRN. Archived from the original on 2017-11-20. Retrieved 2017-11-20.

      The article notes:

      CRN reported last week that unified performance management vendor, Exinda inked a new distribution deal with TechPlus. Melbourne-headquartered TechPlus was originally appointed a Exinda authorised distributor in 2003.

      As part of this new agreement, TechPlus will recruit, assist with training and support a growing network of Exinda authorised and premier partners in the region.

      Scott Frew, CEO of Distribution Central said he first heard of the vendor no longer wanting to be in partnership, when he received a letter in the mail.

      “There was no contact at all except for a letter telling us we were no longer in partnership,” said Crew. “I suspect Exinda wasn’t too happy when we upgraded our hardware with Blue Coat,” he said.

    6. Gold, Jon (2012-05-31). "Exinda targets branch office with new WAN optimization appliances". Network World. Archived from the original on 2017-11-20. Retrieved 2017-11-20.

      The article notes:

      Boston-based WAN optimization vendor Exinda today released two new variants of its Edge line of appliances, targeted at branch-office users who need performance enhancement and don't want to spend a lot of time on setup.

      ...

      The smaller version, dubbed the Edge 2061, starts at $2,990 and the larger 4061 goes for $7,240, though the actual prices could vary, given that the company works exclusively through channel sales. Both take up 1U of rack space, though the 2061 can be placed on a desktop instead. According to Exinda, the larger 4061 can manage up to 768,000 concurrent flows using the company's x700 software, though that number drops to 384,000 when the x800 optimization software is used. The 2061 is limited to 32,000 concurrent flows across the board.

    7. Sharma, Mahesh (2008-05-15). "Melbourne home to Exinda R&D lab". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2017-11-20. Retrieved 2017-11-20.

      The article notes:

      VICTORIA'S busy research and development market has another entrant with US-based Exinda Networks establishing a multi-million dollar, 1200 sqm facility in Melbourne to hasten its production cycle.

      The wide area network optimisation company has invested $2.5 million in the new facility to house 25 engineers and help shorten the company’s release cycle from six months to monthly, by adopting the Agile standard of software development.

      ...

      Mr [Con] Nikolouzakis and Chris Siakos co-founded the company in Melbourne in 2002, themselves RMIT graduates, but moved the headquarters to Boston soon after to bolster its international expansion.

      Thirty five employees based in Boston are mainly focused on sales.

      Last year, Exinda completed its first found of equity funding attracting US$6 million from Boston-based OpenView Venture Partners.

      The company is already profitable but the monies have been reinvested into new market expansion. This will be the modus operandi over the next few years, according to Mr Nikolouzakis.

    8. Norsa, Gerard (2003-08-27). "Federal grant optimises Exinda opportunity". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2017-11-20. Retrieved 2017-11-20.

      The article notes:

      Fledgling software developer, Exinda Networks, has been given a boost after winning a Federal Government grant to develop and market its Internet optimisation technology for national and international distribution.

      Exinda was awarded $52,000 under the AusIndustry Commercialising Emerging Technologies (COMET) grants program to develop its "low-cost, Internet optimisation network appliance" according to director, Anthony Bodin.

      ...

      Exinda is a three-year-old company started up by a group of former RMIT researchers. It currently employs eight people and has distribution agreements with operators in seven countries, including Australia where TechPlus Distribution markets the product.

      Exinda has outsourced manufacturing of its rack-mountable network optimisation appliance which has an RRP of $3990 (plus GST) and which interfaces with a normal PC. It can also stand on a desktop and has already been installed in more than 100 sites in Australia and South-East Asia.

    9. Carey, Adam (2007-09-13). "Players on a global stage". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2017-11-20. Retrieved 2017-11-20.

      The article notes:

      Melbourne network equipment supplier Exinda sells internet traffic management technology to North America and Europe. It chose to install a commission-based channel rather than a company-owned sales force.

      The company's executive director, Con Nikolouzakis, says growth in service-oriented architectures and VoIP puts pressure on business networks, which drives a 30 per cent growth in the internet traffic management business.

      ...

      Exinda's products give priority to business-critical network use, analysing incoming data and giving precedence according to rules.

      Founded in 2002, Mr Nikolouzakis believes the company's youth helps it get the jump on established international competitors such as Juniper and Packeteer, as Exinda benefits from the investment its competitors have made in research and development.

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

    Cunard (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exinda has received sustained coverage between 2003 and 2012. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because, although sourcing is offered, what is of importance here is WP:Not promotion and WP:Not advocate, both basic policies and this is why, from the offered sourcing:
  • Officially headquartered in....Andover.... but....in Toronto, Exinda released....market....full of WAN optimization....Another highlight of Exinda's....visibility....also providing.....Exinda, manufacturer of WAN....offering software....manage its appliances....as CEO notes....[They call] it....software reports....Customers also license software for.....Exinda, a company....aimed....offers 100Mb throughput....4700 hosts applications, hosts and conversations....There are options....starts at $2,990, 7,240, 1U of rackspace....

This is not the significant independent coverage WP:N needs, and also not the material exempt from WP:Deletion policy on WP:Not catalog. SwisterTwister talk 14:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep significant coverage in secondary sources. And factually prose about a company is inherently promotional/advocating. Dbsseven (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. Some of the delete !votes above are umimpressive, as they cherry pick content from news articles and the article to qualify deletion, which takes the sources and article quite out of context relative to their actual respective overall content. North America1000 01:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as typical corporate blurb on spam sources. "Cherrypicked content from news sources" isn't a valid rebuttal if the news content is promotional. I don't think anyone here voted on personal opinion, they voted on policy. I would've suggested keeping if someone had proposed true improvements, but they haven't. Trampton (talk) 03:13, 26 November 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 snowball keep. There's no possibility that this will be closed any way other than keep, and keeping it open is just process for processes sake with the potential to cause bad feeling. ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla Semi

Tesla Semi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an annonced future product of a type that is specifically addressed by the policy WP:CRYSTAL: "...short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."

In the words of one of the cited sources: ''Tonight's Tesla Semi unveiling in Hawthorne, California wasn't about the nitty-gritty information, though. It was about fueling hype and excitement in a way that only Musk can." There are no independently verifiable facts about this future product, no published specification. The only information we have is self-published by the product's vendor. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, this is not a short article. The implications of the announcement are huge. Thousands of people dying because of pollution, thousands dying because of drugged or drowsy semi drivers. The truck will revolutionize the industry. If you do a search on a given 24 hour period you will find thousands of hits on this topic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To say nothing of the children. I didn't even think of the children. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too soon in the creation process to merit an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed Gene.redinger (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Yes, it's based on hype, but hype from Musk generates a thousand speculative articles across the spectrum for the foreseeable future. Having an article (flagged as having lousy sources) where we can document the origin of the speculations would be useful. (Yes, I'm aware I'm linking to a discussion describing arguments not to make in article deletion discussions). Among other things, if this article doesn't exist, it's going to get created multiple times in many forms under many names. With this article we can document that two prototypes have been built and shown, with various claims attached, and that external confirmation is not available. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Easily meets GNG, tons of sourcing. — JFG talk 15:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 1. Wikipedias in other languages have the same article 2. Did anybody check the statistics of that article? [5] This article has more than 1000 viewers per day at the moment. A very popular article in Wikipedia like "cat" has more than 6000 viewers per day.[6] Who could be interested in deleting such an article ? Wega14 (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is notable and well sourced. It is not some vaporware from an unknown company. StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If something has a working prototype and hundreds of notable sources write about it, then it should have an article. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep meets WP:GNG, it's well sourced. not vaporware. 700k+ ghits, and coverage in major news media. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the fallacies in five of the keep !votes above: see 1. WP:OTHERLANGS which don't have the same guidelines as en.wikipedia and are often machine copies of the English article, among other reasons. 2. WP:POPULARPAGE -- If our goal was to maximize page hits, we'd have a lot more porn or celebrity gossip. 3. WP:Clearly notable. 4. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. The WP:NOT policy against product announcements doesn't carve out an exception because a prototype supposedly exists. Another reminder: we have no independent evidence the prototype is capable of anything close to the claimed performance, or even that it really works at all. We only have the company's own boasts. The 0-60 time or operating cost are just as dubious as the "nuclear explosion-proof glass”. If an individual boasted that they had invented cold fusion or had a secret love child with the Pope, we wouldn't treat these things as facts, or automatically want to repeat their boasts. Fans of Tesla (I count myself as one) are losing their perspective and objectivity. Consider the more sober assessment by industry analysts quoted at The Verge to cite one example: that the Roadster 2 and Semi look very much like clever distractions from the company's looming cash flow problems, and the "production hell" the Model 3 is mired in, which threatens the very existence of Tesla. But they can raise a quick $250 million in deposits for Roadster 2, and can distract investors from the company's troubles, proping up the stock price. If they never build the Semi or Roadster 2, nobody will care a year from now because they haven't really committed themselves to anything. From nothing comes nothing. These are some of the reasons why we've had the WP:CRYSTAL policy for so long.

      User:Tarl N., above, admits that their weak keep flies in the face of a number of article notability guidelines and AfD consensus, and WP:IAR allows that. I can respect that point of view, even if I happen to disagree. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • And how is The Verge's analysis any less WP:CRYSTAL? Yes, they might "never build" them, but that's not our place to judge. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The industry analysts quoted have far more credibility than the breathless fanboys at the gaggle of green car blogs mostly cited, and they cast credible doubt on basically every single prediction in the article. So we have one source, Tesla, and we have many reasons to doubt that one source. The statements by the one source, Tesla, are not facts, they are speculation and conjecture. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The industry analysts have zero credibility. They have been predicting Tesla bankruptcy and other ills for years. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personal speculation about a company’s secret plans and motives, presented without evidence, is not a sound rationale for deleting a Wikipedia article. As far as I’m aware, no professional industry analyst thinks that the Tesla Semi is not a real vehicle that Tesla fully intends to build. I haven’t even seen an analyst question the advertised specs on the Semi. I believe Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s comment about “thermonuclear explosion-proof glass” was a joke, as he laughed when he said it and it got a laugh from the audience. Deepdeepocean (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is largely a promotional hype at this point. All that reliable sources are repeating is essentially that the announcement happened at this time and place, and Tesla (Musk) showed a prototype, described some prospective features, shared some numbers and made future projections. Nobody could possibly verify most of this information. A short section in the Tesla article should suffice. Popularity of the topic is not a good reason to have an article. Wikipedia is fundamentally about the accepted knowledge. There is no reliable knowledge at this point. Retimuko (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how WP:V works. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I used the word "verify" not in the same sense as WP:V. Yes, we can verify that Musk said certain things. I love electric cars, and wish Tesla the best of luck, but the article is about a bunch of promises at this point. Retimuko (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but they're still promises that have been widely reported on in the media. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity of a topic doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic content. A quote from WP:CRYSTAL: "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Retimuko (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity of a topic doesn't mean it is encyclopedic, but it is a strong indication. WP:CRYSTAL product announcement is intended for the myriad of product announcements that happen readily, like a new version of car. Done with a press release and a couple of paragraphs of relevant info. In comparison there are working prototypes demonstrated to live audience, orders being taken, detailed specs released, including pricing. http://tesla.com/semi Product is being discussed widely from several perspectives and continues to be referenced widely in the media everyday. The article continues to be expanded everyday. And daily page views show the exceptional value of this page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was the correct answer a half of decade ago. Why no one listened to this user is beyond me. Gene.redinger (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, there's a burst of coverage based on a press conference. But all those news outlets considered this worthy of covering. There's more than enough here to pass WP:GNG and that is all that matters. Things that don't exist, or things that might never exist, are still notable if they pass GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON and or WP:PROMOTION, but noting the number of readers of the page, rather than an all out delete, a redirect to the relevant section (bolstered with more sources), looks more appropriate if this is not kept. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very useful for research. 1500 views per day. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with the deletion nomination of Tesla Roadster (2020). Darius robin (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Roadster (2020), opened 12 minutes later. —Sladen (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Bushranger. The topic passes GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument for deleting the article seems to be that the Tesla Semi’s existence is dubious, or it’s dubious that the Semi’s advertised specs are achievable. However, no reliable source as been cited as sharing these doubts. On the other hand, major companies such as Walmart and J.B. Hunt have placed orders for the vehicle.[1] This indicates that at least some trucking experts believe this vehicle is real and have some confidence in Tesla’s claims about it. Deepdeepocean (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep international media reception. Das ist der erste Truck von Tesla --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only deletion reason I see so far was based on "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate". 18 kb, well sourced. This is not a short article, and it has much more than merely the product announcement. --mfb (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not a short article, nor does it only rely on a product announcement. The WSJ article covering preorders (mentioned above) is a good example of that. It's clear that the paper didn't just rely on a Tesla press release but contacted preorder buyers and other companies of interest. This is not mere vaporware or product placement; preorders and interest by major shipping companies are present fact reported in secondary sources, not the sort of speculation or rumor that WP:CRYSTAL concerns. An AfD is premature for something generating this much coverage, when there's valid reason to expect coverage to continue and provide lasting notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets GNG/RS, and even if one car was never sold, the mere product announcement alone is notable in itself in this case and provides plenty of non-speculative information, voiding CRYSTAL concerns. South Nashua (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Am surprised that the nominator nominated it without looking at refs first. Slate (the very first ref) is reliable all alone. Adding to it LA Times, The Verge and TechCruch (good RS for autos, as far as I know), and its good to go article. Although YouTube and the rest can be removed or altered to appease the masses, but clearly deleting it is not an option.--Biografer (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball clause I think WP:SNOWBALL should be invoked. The almost unanimous view is that the article should be kept. The user who nominated the argument for deletion cited WP:CRYSTALBALL, but that policy supports keeping the article: “Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate.” This is a long article about a newly revealed product that includes information from independent analysts, not just product announcement information. Moreover, the user nominating the deletion seems to motivated by their personal speculation (not based on evidence) that the product announcement is deliberately deceptive and part of a secret plan by the company. That does not seem to be an appropriate reason to nominate an article for deletion. It would seem to violate WP:NOTFORUM. Plus, even if this speculation is true, then surely the article is all the more notable. If any reliable source believes the announcement is part of a secret plan to deceive investors, include that in the article. Deepdeepocean (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
— Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - It's vaporware. Gene.redinger (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Plamondon

Jim Plamondon (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)

Completing nomination for 2601:600:9680:3041:89a8:632d:128b:b4f, who wrote: Violates Autobiography:Creating an article about yourself. Violates Notability. Violates:Biographies of Living People:Maintenance of BLPs. ansh666 19:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:30, 19 November 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. At the risk of getting accused of nose-counting, I'll observe that the !vote tally is running about 2:1 in favor of keep. But, this isn't nose counting, so I also took a deeper look at the arguments.

The basic point of contention between the two camps is what defines a scandal?. Most of the delete arguments are variations on There's no objective inclusion criteria. Looking at WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:LISTN, I can't convince myself that the level of ambiguity inherent in defining a scandal is sufficient to raise this concern from one of needs editorial cleanup to needs to be deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of federal political scandals in the United States

AfDs for this article:
List of federal political scandals in the United States (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 entire article is OR based on some editors choice of what is a scandel, it is in itself a BLP violation Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of replacing this article’s lead-in paragraphs which describe the inclusion criteria used, which was removed by 2606:a000:6444:4700:59d0:5215:432b:c56 on the 16th, replaced by both Hmains and Favonia, when the information was removed once again by DarknessShines, 6 minutes (co-incidence?) before Nomination for Deletion. I think it is unfair that editors and administrators alike do not have easy access to the very information which is being discussed.
I also note that the lead in articles for both Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are entirely OR with no citations or reliable sources listed. I also note they are both locked.Johnsagent (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which I have removed again per WP:V It's a BLP and addition of any uncited commentary violates a fair few policies Darkness Shines (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article mixes together situations where people were convicted and sent to prison as well as situations where no charges were filed at all, which is a WP:BLP problem. Furthermore, it is organized by presidential administration, then organized within each administration by the executive branch, legislative branch, and judicial branch. However, most of the legislative and judicial branch scandals cited had nothing to do with the presidential administration under which they are listed, other than chronology. For example, Barack Obama should not be associated with the crimes of federal judges whom he didn't appoint (federal judges have life tenure during good behavior, so at any given time much of the federal judiciary will have been appointed by past presidents), nor of members of Congress who were not of his party and who were never allied with him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article has been around since 2004. In November 2010 it was an AfD nom with a delete decision that was overturned at DRV. I'm not sure what provoked this particular nom, (I'd encourage creation of a POV task force focused on political arguments if I thought it stood a chance) but trying to make BLP vios go away when politics are involved is wishful thinking. If the allegations are cited to RS there are far too many variables and ambiguities in our PAGs that work against making an article compliant. Regarding the mixing of situations, my position is that we shouldn't even have one "standalone" article based on unsupported allegations, but then take a look at all the Trump et al POVFORKs that have materialized, and the AfDs that were shot down. There was one article that was finally deleted after 2 attempts - Donald Trump's handshake - and it required some serious arguments to reach consensus. If this article ends up being deleted, it will provide a precedent that can be used in future AfD arguments, and that would probably be a good thing. In the interim, my suggestion is to tag the specific BLP violations and bring them to the attention of BLPN (which is what I just had to do for a different article that involved a BLP vio).on 2nd thought, BLP/N needs more volunteers to be a truly productive noticeboard. 14:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Atsme📞📧 20:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The prior AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political scandals of the United States and its deletion review was at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 4#Political scandals of the United States. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is fourteen years old, is well defined and well documented. It should not be deleted on a whim just before a major holiday. The objections given seem to be about nuances of definition and format which have not yet been discussed on the relevant talk page. I suggest that today’s anger over current events, whichever they are, should not lead to impetuous action. Johnsagent (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though this list may need to be updated, it will well sourced, it is still very relevant to issues of the day. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'Wikipedia:Deletion policy: Alternatives to deletion' says;

“Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.” This is NOT a severe case, Metropolitan90 mentions only two minor issues, neither fatal. Keep unchanged. Valleyjc (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have two major concerns. First, this list lacks a clear selection criteria. Why does the resignation of Dr. William Bradford constitute a scandal, but Alternative Facts (which has its own encyclopedia article) doesn't? What criteria is used to decide if something is scandalous? Second, the article has fundamental structural problems that are impossible to remedy -- it is organized by presidential (executive) administration, but additionally talks about judicial and legislative scandals within those headings. At the very most this article should be converted into a category, although I think that would be unwise as well (see old arguments about a similar issue). cnzx (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no clear definition of what is and what is not a scandal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR with unclear criteria for inclusion. The list would be more viable if most entries had stand-alone articles, which is not currently the case. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. This needs to be well sourced and clear guidelines on what counts are necessary, but these aren't issues that require deletion. Natureium (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Natureium: could you articulate a workable set of criteria for inclusion and exclusion? cnzx (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is merely a list of political scandals that involve officials from the government of the United States. Sounds like an obvious and simple criterion for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sure, let's delete all pages that describe how officials of country X have been convicted of crime or became subjects of scandals or even controversies. That will probably satisfy someone's POV. However, doing so would be strongly against the purpose of encyclopedia, that is to provide important and reliable information, and of course that would be against WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (see public figures). The list is focusing on important public figures. This is right thing to do per our policy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NOW this is just Silly! Is there a better way to list history other than chronologically? Watergate would be impossible to understand unless grouped by administration. Politicians should be listed politically. Yes, a few pickpockets and perverts maybe misplaced by a few years. So what?
SCANDALS is the name of the article. Conviction and Resignation are the general criteria though there others. Nixon, Anthony Weiner, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales. Is there anyone who would not call them scandals? None were convicted of anything, yet their resignations just before investigation or trial (which might have proven their innocence) speak volumes.
RECENTISM? That’s a new one. Of course, there are more crooks now, thanks to population increase. Duh.
ADMINISTRATORS - My I ask you changes the rules somehow? To sneak in a Deletion on a holiday sucks.Newlenp (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An encyclopedic list, prepared objectively The emphasis on recent events is unavoidable -- even if we had WPedians interested in providing fuller coverage of the earlier period, there are many more federal officials not than there were 200 years, and consequently more scandals. Essentially everything is sourced; essentially everything is a conviction or forced resignation--and certainly there would be any number of sources call them scandals. There is very little BLP protection for public officials, because anything relevant to their suitability for their jobs is relevant content. All that is really necessary is accuracy and avoid overemphasis., and those are not problems here. The chronological order is appropriate--anything else would be relatively useless--history articles are written chronologically, not alphabetically. Division by presidential terms is the normal way for US history, and does not imply that the president had any necessary connection with what members of either party did during his tenure of office. . I'm really puzzled at wanting the deletion of something like this, unless it's an attempt to see how far the meaningand purpose of our rules can be stretched by quibbling. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an editorial decision, it might be worth excluding post-2000 content for BLP and recency-bias concerns, but the rest of the page is fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should only list 'scandals' that are at least 5yr old or older, so the dust around the scandal has time to settle and the accounting of it is most accurate? Just a thought, C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A time limit? Wikipedia works not only as an Encyclopedia, but a Newspaper as well. Rather than 5 years, death would be a better limit to satisfy BLP, that way no one could complain. But who wants to wait two or three decades to include Hillary or Donald? Keep unchanged.Orliepie (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of the Delete opinions seem to be Wikilawyering to me and and seem pretty weak. And ask yourself, where else could this information be found? What Wiki Article covers it as completely? What Category is as easy to find? For that matter, what book, what website, what news outlet, covers so much, so well, with so little POV? For god‘s sake, Keep!Orliepie (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see that there are a significant number of "keep" supporters, but I would like to know how many of the "keep" supporters would be willing to support the idea of reorganizing this list so that legislative and judicial scandals were not tied to the presidential administrations in which they happened to occur. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:02, 27 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poona Public School

Poona Public School (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 have been created in 2011 and without any references it survived almost 7 years #1997kB 17:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Pune_district#Education. Normally, my !vote for a secondary school would be to keep, as per policy.  However, this school poses a problem. Firstly, Poona is the former British colonial name for Pune and no school website can be found that matches the article name. The nearest fit seems to be New Pune Public School, but I can't find anything to confirm a link, which would justify a page rename to it, rather than a redirect to the education authority. So, instead, a redirect to the Education section within the District of Pune page seems most appropriate at the present time. (But it seems the Pune district itself might soon be split up into the Chinchwad_District, if that unsourced page is anything to go by. And Chinchwad and Akurdi are both named on the New Pune Public School website, even if that school doesnt have a page if its own yet.) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found Poona Public School which is or was a primary school, and seems to be on the top floor of a four-storey commercial building. Street level is a car dealership. I could not find registration with any secondary education (high school) board. I doubt the information in the article is reliable. I would not redirect to the Pune district article because it does not seem to be a government-run school, which that might imply to some people. It seems to be on the level of a small business. It does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG, even verifiability is questionable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant research to track it down, so I've struck some of my remarks above. However, I'm not totally sure it's still the same school. Same name, yes, but its website states its a primary school founded in 2002, not a secondary school founded in 1950 as per the article. I'd be OK with a delete, but feel a redirect would probably still be better, especially as the target section does state Private schools are operated by charitable trusts. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might be reading the date of the Mumbai Public Trust Act 1950 as the date of the school. The addresses match. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes, you are right. I think, on balance, I'm now going to strike my first !vote, and go for delete, too, as not meeting WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article lacks sources. Clearly nothing that shows it makes any impact as a secondary school, and even being a secondary school is not proven.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:GNG and also lacking clear verification as a secondary school. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is the work done by AngusWOOF is just enough to make the article acceptable in mainspace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Briner

AfDs for this article:
Justin Briner (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)

To paraphrase from the declined version of the draft, this is a clear case of WP:BOMBARD with no indication of WP:GNG being met. 95% of the (massive number of) references do little more than verify that Briner voiced XYZ role, with the remainder being interviews or his own accounts. Recommending histmerging this back into the draft (because it was improperly cut/pasted) and allowing the creator another go. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the draftification/histmerge occurs, I'm also recommending re-adding the previous decline notice for the record. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to be fair, the 95% of the references used are mainly to source the filmography section which for voice actors is always going to be a large portion, even for highly notable voice actors like Jennifer Hale or Tom Kenny (see Tom Kenny filmography). If you think it should be split off from his main article that can be arranged. I've attempted to replace the cast announcements (which are passing mentions) with reviews and critiques of his voice work, and have used that in the biography section, and also attempted to show significance of the roles presented, that they aren't just guest or minor roles but lead characters. The question also becomes whether voicing in a pile of "broadcast dubs" (dubs that are mainly streamed on a subscription network, as opposed to broadcast on cable / television) is considered notable works for WP:ENT's "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." If the anime show hits Cartoon Network/Adult Swim or Fox/4Kids, or mainstream anime films, then it's not a big deal. His most notable works are My Hero Academia (broadcast dub) which has had anime convention panels, and Cibele (video game) which was covered in secondary sourced mainstream news. I'm still looking around for the exclusive news report on Briner though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with respect to the casting verification, but my main concern is that when you remove that, you're left with little more than interviews and his own websites. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to WP:DRAFTS. I agree with the concern raised that there are too many sources pointing to his own websites. If someone is willing to work on the article then it might push it to meet the required guidelines/policy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've already worked what I could into the article. It's more whether he's going to meet notability despite the effort. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to Keep based on recent comments here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adding a rationale per comment on my talk. The majority of votes were for delete and this was the case even looking at the set of votes that came in after Cunard added his sources. Given his assiduousness in finding sources and the fact that the editors who commented after rejected his sourcing the delete arguments are clearly the ones founded most closely on policy. Spartaz Humbug! 07:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reedsy

Reedsy (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)

Looks to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The only substantial piece that I could find that would count towards the GNG is the cited piece in the Guardian. The rest of the coverage is your standard press release churn from trade pubs, Tech Crunch (not an RS). The Telegraph piece is both a trivial mention and a primary source as it is based on quotes from the CEO of the company and isn't independent. On the whole, I don't see a GNG pass either from a BEFORE search or based on the sourcing in the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. There are numerous reliable sources with the company as the main focus, such as Publishers Weekly, Popular Science, The Evening Standard. TechCrunch is a reliable source which covers Reedsy in-depth here and here. It gets a full article treatment in Forbes magazine. Previous discussion about a COI issue are of no relevance here. Easily meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here we go: Popular Science that article from is basically a "how to self-publish" guide and not coverage of the subject: it is mentioned briefly as an option for self-publishing among other options. The Publishers Weekly text is pretty standard industry coverage which we typically don't count towards notability. The Evening Standard piece is tips from the founder of the company on how to self-publish, which is certainly not independent and would make it a primary source. The Forbes piece is actually worse than the Guardian model that Iridescent commented on below, because Forbes Contributors are what Forbes calls the people who use their platform to blog. There is no editorial oversight, and we don't count it towards notability for AfDs typically. As for TechCrunch, in the past year, I've never seen an AfD consider it a reliable source for notability purposes. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Publishers Weekly doesn't count toward notability. Seriously? Publishers Weekly is the dominant source in the publishing industry. Period. It devoted an entire article on Reedsy. Forbes, Evening Standard, The Guardian et al all devoted serious attention to Reedsy, and all have editorial oversight; their reputations will all suffer if they print untrue stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes doesn't have editorial oversight for their contributors. They did not devote a full article. A blogger did. Publishers Weekly did give it brief coverage, yes, and it is certainly a reliable source. The question becomes whether it was intellectually independent, which I think it's fair to say it wasn't. The article is a short blurb that was likely based on material provided by the firm. Iri has already addressed theGuardian below. The Evening Standard piece was written as tips from the CEO: that's both primary and not intellectually independent. Intellectual independence from the company is what we require in sourcing, and I see virtually none here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any reliable publication such as Forbes or Publishers Weekly or TechCrunch has a reputation to protect. That's vital for them. Regardless of how they get their news, they're not going to publish junk or untrue stuff since doing so would risk their reputation. In that sense, they're all exercising editorial oversight.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @TonyBallioni: In context, I wouldn't consider the Guardian one a reliable source either; the Guardian operates an "open citizen journalism" model under which anyone can contribute (it's not Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" as they do still maintain some degree of editorial control and vet out the most blatant crap), and this particular Citizen Journalist appears to do nothing but write puff-pieces for the e-reader industry. (No keep/delete from me as this is really not a topic about which I care, although I'll note in passing that I've rarely seen an article that looks more like an obvious piece of spam padded out with dubious sources to make it look legit.) ‑ Iridescent17:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The Guardian is a credible source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already explained to you above, while its news coverage is written by real journalists and constitutes a reliable source, its other sections are based on an "open journalism" model in which anyone can submit an article, and are no more reliable than Buzzfeed. (As for the notion that the present-day Evening Standard—which was once a legitimate newspaper but is now a ridiculous Russian rag given out free to passers-by at railway stations—constitutes a reliable source for anything, words fail me.) ‑ Iridescent 17:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian -- arguably the most respected newspaper in Britain-- printed the article on Reedsy. That the writer was a freelance journalist specializing in e-commerce is irrelevant. The Guardian printed it. It's a reliable source. I'm less sure about Evening Standard but the numerous other sources clearly suggest Reedsy is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably the most respected newspaper in Britain—where on earth are you getting that from? Even the Grauniad itself wouldn't claim that, and in terms of public trust it consistently polls below Wikipedia itself. ‑ Iridescent 18:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too soon, according to the sources they haven't done anything yet. It's a startup, we need to wait until they actually accomplish something. "A collaborative editing tool will launch over the summer. After that, Reedsy will, inevitably, start publishing." - that was 2.5 years ago - what has actually happened? The Guardian article is not the quality I expected - is this a new model? Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that can be helpful, here's a long list of articles on our AngelList Page, that mention Reedsy. Here's also another one in The Guardian and one in BBC World News. Feel free to do your own due diligence but please don't disregard too quickly a company that's actually providing the best product for indie authors on the market. I decided to create a dedicated page after the company was included in the self-publishing page. Many thanks,Neguev(talk) 11:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guardian source is from an open journalism freelancer as Iri pointed out above. AngeList is your own social media. BBC World News video (not text article) is an interview with you, which makes it a primary source and non-independent source, which we don't count towards notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; the company exists, but have not accomplished anything of significance or notability just yet. Nom's analysis of sources is compelling. Guardian for example is from a freelance author. What's in the article belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No depth here, just coverage you'd expect for a small services company. Szzuk (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Baddeley, Anna (2005-05-18). "Reedsy could offer self-published authors a professional edge". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2017-11-25. Retrieved 2017-11-25.

      The article notes:

      Publishing startup Reedsy is shaking things up with a marketplace where independent authors can connect with talented freelance editors, designers and publicists.

      Since opening its doors last November, it now has 3,000 authors signed up, and a pool of 300 freelancers. Unlike some other freelancing sites, quality control is fundamental: out of 6,000 applications, only those with the most glittering CVs were spared the trash folder.

      The main thing that sets Reedsy apart from the many companies offering “author services” is its platform. This is a tech company first and foremost; its USP a lean, highly usable interface that draws inspiration from the blogging platform Medium.

      The article is written by Anna Baddeley, who is both a freelance writer for publications like The Guardian and digital editor for 1843, a publication of the Economist Group. Because of her role at the Economist Group, I consider her a serious and reputable journalist.
    2. Reid, Calvin (2015-01-02). "Reedsy Debuts Skills Market, Plans Curated Imprint". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2017-11-25. Retrieved 2017-11-25.

      The article notes:

      Reedsy is a self-publishing startup that currently offers its users access to a marketplace of skilled freelance book-production professionals. Beginning in spring 2015, however, the site will debut an online collaborative-editing tool on the platform, and there are also plans for a curated Reedsy book imprint.

      Based in the U.K., Reedsy launched in September with a skills exchange that gives writers access to a selection of vetted professional book editors and designers. And beginning in March 2015, cofounder Ricardo Fayet said, the company plans to launch an online writing/editing platform that will help writers and editors collaborate on manuscripts. The Reedsy online editing tool provides version control for editorial changes and an internal email and payment system that allows the writer and editorial/production support team to collaborate on the manuscript entirely within the Reedsy platform—no external email needed. Once a manuscript is completed, Reedsy’s editorial tool will convert the manuscript into ePub or Mobi file formats.

      ...

      Reedsy makes money by collecting 10% of the fee paid in hiring from the skills exchange—about 60 editing and design referrals have been made to date. Eight hundred writers currently use Reedsy. Fayet also said the site is working to create partnerships with Kickstarter and PubSlush to offer crowdfunding support to authors who need funding.

      This article provides detailed coverage about Reedsy's history and product.
    3. Reid, Calvin (2016-02-26). "Reedsy Grows, Launches Online Book Editor Tool". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2017-11-25. Retrieved 2017-11-25.

      The article notes:

      Founded in late 2014, Reedsy is a U.K.-based self-publishing venture that launched with a professional skills marketplace as well as plans to offer an online editing and collaboration tool sometime in 2015. Although it's taken a bit longer to develop the editing technology, the company has launched the Reedsy Book Editor, a free online authoring tool that allows writers to format their books online.

      Reedsy cofounder Ricardo Fayet said traffic is growing on the site—more than 7,000 authors have registered as users. Reedsy has also entered into partnerships with IngramSpark and Kobo Writing Life to offer their clients editing services via the Reedsy Book Editor.

    4. Anderson, Porter (2014-09-06). "Reedsy: Bending into digital self-publishing". The Bookseller. Archived from the original on 2017-11-25. Retrieved 2017-11-25.

      The article notes:

      In the graphics for Reedsy, you sometimes spot "cattails," as we call them in the sea islands of South Carolina. Reeds.

      And so, one goes into an interview here hoping that the cutesy name for this new company isn't the misspelling of "read" that one worries it just could be.

      Big relief: "The name is meant to refer to reeds," says chief operating officer Ricardo Fayet when pinned down on the matter.

      ...

      Reedsy was founded just this year. Since May, they've been with micro-seed investment fund Seedcamp, which is backing them in a 50-50 split with DC Thomson Ventures.

      ...

      Only time will tell whether the ability to search out such freelance service providers on a site like Reedsy, talk over a project, haggle over price, and do a deal will get writers past the "yes but I can't find one" stage. The organiser of an autumn conference of traditionally published authors told me that many of the membership feel clueless when it comes to finding their own editors, designers, marketers and translators for self-publishing efforts.

    5. Flatt, Molly (2015-10-29). "BookTech Showcase: Reedsy". The Bookseller. Archived from the original on 2017-11-25. Retrieved 2017-11-25.

      The article notes:

      Reedsy was founded only in the spring of 2014 but this curated marketplace for publishing professionals is already making waves. After receiving 7,000 initial applications, the platform now boasts more than 300 professional freelance designers, editors and marketers, many of whom come from big-name houses and some of whom have worked with the likes of Ken Follett, Neil Gaiman, George RR Martin, Stephen King and Jodi Picoult. The charismatic Nataf’s media instincts have seen glowing writeups appear in The Guardian, TechCrunch and Forbes.

      Services added since launch include an interface that streamlines the book production workflow; another that allows publishers to manage multiple projects in one place; and the company is also about to release a free collaborative book editing tool.

    6. Bennett, Madeline (2017-11-09). "How collaborative tools and cloud computing help firms' success". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2017-11-25. Retrieved 2017-11-25.

      The article notes:

      Reedsy, meanwhile, is an online platform that helps authors to get their books published. Since 2014, the start-up has built a network of more than 50,000 authors and publishing professionals, matching them up to work on relevant projects.

      This model has already produced thousands of books and Reedsy’s founders say part of its success is down to its workplace model based on freelancers and flexible working. “Reedsy is a completely officeless business: while our community of freelance professionals lives across 600 cities, the Reedsy team hails from more than 10 countries,” says co-founder Emmanuel Nataf.

      Though this article is not significant coverage, I am including it here to answer editors' assertions that Reedsy has not accomplished anything. The article notes that Reedsy since its founding in 2014 has produced thousands of books and matched 50,000 authors and publishing professionals.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Reedsy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, per the Reflist and Cunard's list. With that said it does read a little promo and could be edited, but that's cleanup not delete. -- GreenC 14:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cunard's sourcing, per usual, comes nowhere close to meeting any of the guidelines in WP:N, WP:RS, or WP:ORG, and most have been addressed by editors above. Most of them are also WP:SPIP. Simply copying and pasting recycled press releases into AfD debates doesn't not in fact meet the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence these sources are copying and pasting press releases? That should be easy to prove. Just saying it doesn't make it true.. -- GreenC 15:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll go through them one-by-one.
Source 6 is an interview with the CEO: this does not count towards the GNG because it is a primary source that is not independent of the subject, failing both WP:N and WP:ORGIND. The parts Cunard cited were the lead up sentences to the interview.
Source 4, when read in context, is the same thing. Quotes from the CEO and filler sentences in between the quotes with marketing language. It is highly likely that this was either taken from a corporate fact sheet that the CEO brought with him or that the author paraphrased him. Also a primary source and failure of ORGIND. Also appears to be a blog post that is part of a series where they interview startups. Literally every startup on the planet could find similar coverage because this is part of the business plan these days.
Source 5 is by the same publisher as source 4, and has similar issues. It also appears to be a blogpost.
Publishers Weekly, while a reliable source for verifying information is not always a reliable source for confirming notability: it is still trade press and trade press often relies on information provided directly by the company with little editorial oversight. We normally exclude these per ORGIND.
Source 2: same author, so lacks intellectual independence from Source 3 even if we accept that source 3 meets ORGIND. This only counts as one source per WP:N.
We have already been over the first source, which is arguably the strongest. Iridescent has explained the practice here, but I will go ahead and discuss Cunard's rebuttal: the context of someone's work as a freelancer depends on the specific publication and what they are doing there. She might be reputable as a whole, but decide as a freelancer that she wants to publish stories solely on small startups in the UK and go around asking them for press release information to quickly write articles so she can get paid. This is a normal practice in this field, because it is beneficial to all parties. Iridescent has already looked at the articles published for the Guardian , which makes this very likely. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the characterization of the sources. For example Source 6, 4 & 5 is a journalistic article with a signed author published in a reliable source. Does it quote someone? Yes, but what journalistic piece doesn't? That's how journalism works. Even Wikipedia has quotes by people. When I think of an interview piece, it's where the entire conversation is pasted verbatim, unlike this piece that has original reportage and selected quotes integrated into the journalists writing. Any journalist worth their pay is going to interview someone from the company they are reporting about. For Publishers Weekly, I've never heard of that being excluded from AfD, as something "we normally do".. I've been doing AfD's for 8 years and never heard that before. Finally the idea that a piece is simply rehashing a press release is just an opinion without evidence. Sure that happens, but it doesn't mean it happened here, it can be proven if it can be shown the content is just a rehash of a press release and doesn't contain original reportage.. -- GreenC 17:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the original source of 4&5? Not the archive link but the actual source? They are blog posts. I disagree on everything else, but those can’t possibly be qualified as journalism by even the loosest standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word "blog" doesn't always mean unreliable when it's part of a series like this. 4 is by Porter Anderson who is "a career journalist" and "Editor-in-Chief of Publishing Perspectives, a news magazine focused on the international book publishing scene and founded in 2009 by Frankfurt Book Fair New York". He seems pretty reliable. Molly Flatt is also a professional journalist and Associate Editor at The Memo and Digital Editor at PHOENIX magazine, which seems like a reliable writer also. That these leading professionals in the industry found the company notable enough to comment on seems, well, Notable. -- GreenC 17:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are lacking in independence and depth, which is a reflection of the company's low notability. Even the Guardian piece is pretty shallow. The subject fails WP:GNG. Rentier (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this has any encyclopedis value outside of corporate spam. Trampton (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I agree with most of the comments by GreenC and others above about the various questionable arguments being used to disqualify various sources. We have: charges of PR recycling without specific evidence that that has really happened here; dismissal of pieces by professional journalists as blog posts despite their credentials and history; rejection of Publishers Weekly out of hand; and, I would add, dismissal of Anna Baddeley's work because of the inadequately evidenced claim that her pieces on the e-book industry are "puff pieces". This one, at least, is openly skeptical of the strategy the company in question is using, and hardly looks like a "puff piece" to me.
I'll grant the deletion advocates this much: some of the sources (e.g., the Telegraph) do appear to be lacking in independence due to excessive reliance on company personnel, ascertainable from the sources' own text. Also, the depth does leave something to be desired. But IMO it is over the threshold, and cannot be pushed below it without using the above-mentioned questionable claims to dismiss the remaining sources.
I was able to find only one source not already referenced here:
Conrad, Kathryn M. (2017). "Public libraries as publishers: critical opportunity". Journal of Electronic Publishing. 20 (1). doi:10.3998/3336451.0020.106. Archived from the original on 2017-11-27. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
This article refers to Reedsy as a source for information on the cost of various aspects of self-publishing (copyediting, proofreading, professional cover design). Not exactly an aside, since the information is used to support the author's main line of argument. Admittedly not much depth either. But IMO depth is already adequate from existing sources.
—Syrenka V (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thank Cunard for the hard work of searching for sources. On a broad look, the sources seem to be fine. However, I am convinced by the rebuttals by TonyBallioni who has taken a deeper look at the sources. One thing is clear that that company has not created any outstanding product which has garnered attention. The sources either quote company personally or excessively rely on them. Multiple articles by the same author are counted as a single source. The series on startups are essentially designed to inform the public about currently non-notable firms. It is not about already notable companies. The sources all seem like the flurry of sources companies try to get out when seeking publicity. Going for a delete here.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About your comment "that company has not created any outstanding product" -- it's a service firm, not a consumer goods maker. Its service is connecting authors with vetted publishing freelancers (editors/ cover designers/ proofreaders etc) -- that's what it does -- and it plays an important role in the increasingly important Self-publishing market. Reedsy is one of the two big players (the other is Bibliocrunch). All firms seek publicity; that this firm succeeded in getting publicity in respectable publications indicates notability, not the opposite.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are a self publishing firm - this means they are merely doing their job - self publishing on others reputable outlets. The refs are useless. Szzuk (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tony has it right, the only suitable source is the Guardian piece, everything else is a trivial passing mention, and the prose brought up by Cunard looks like stereotypical marketing buzzword bingo. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:11, 27 November 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. MBisanz talk 04:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Eeuwes

Robert Eeuwes (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:NGRIDIRON - never played a game in a top-level professional league. PKT(alk) 18:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 18:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 18:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found using the ProQuest database: National Post: "Eeuwes is still kicking around; Argos 2nd kicker?", The Windsor Star "Lancers add solid kicker" and "Eeuwes puts best foot forward for Lancers; Kicker hits 5 field goals". I'm not sure if I am allowed to copy-paste the articles for others to see so I will sum them up instead. The first source is about 28 sentences long and talks about him attempting to make the Argonauts. The second source is about 13 sentences long and it sums up his career up to that point. The third source is probably the least relevant of the three for determining notability. It sums up the game, while also stating what Eeuwes did during it and listing his overall Eeuwes's stats for the game. It also has one quote each from a player and coach about Eeuwes's performance. Thoughts? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trying out for the CFL is not a notability criterion in and of itself — a person has to make the big league, not just audition for it, to clear GRIDIRON — and while the fact that a couple of sources exist for his CIS career with the Lancers isn't nothing, it also isn't enough in and of itself: a couple of sources could easily be shown for almost anybody who ever played football even at the high school level. To deem somebody at this level of play notable enough for a Wikipedia article just on the existence of media coverage, we would need evidence that he had substantially more coverage than most other players at this level could show. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails the inclusion criteria for sportsmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can still pass GNG. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If he could show a lot more sourcing than most other people at his level of play could also show, then maybe. But that's not what's in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 25 November 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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. Further discussion about the article can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America1000 01:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working in layers

Working in layers (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)

PROD reverted without improvement. Original research since 2006. A search today did not turn up authoritative sources, although I bet there must be some. The article fails WP:V unless it can be substantiated. Rhadow (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as the nominator does not appear to have read or understood the article. It explains that "in the early 15th century Cennino D'Andrea Cennini describes how to paint in layers" and so there's an authoritative source in plain sight. It is, of course, easy to find modern sources which confirm this such as the Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art. The nominator also does not seem to understand WP:V which only requires citations for quotations and controversial material. Andrew D. (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though there is a case for a merge to Oil painting. It's certainly a thing. I'm mystified by the claimed difficulty in finding sources - there are hundreds, very easily found. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Topic Ban for any more of these unexamined prods and AfDs. This is a technique so well known even I've heard of it. It's obvious (as for all the others) that the nominator is making no efforts at WP:BEFORE before any of these. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been a core technique in oil painting for hundreds of years and as Johnbod has demonstrated, there are many sources, historical and contemporary. Working in layers is also done in acrylic painting and in digital painting (e.g., Photoshop or Painter layers). The article does need some work, but there is nothing like copyvio that requires deletion. A highly notable topic and no insurmountable content problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Oil painting or other suitable article on the basic processes of painting. Am I missing something here? Virtually all artistic painting processes are done in layers, typically beginning with the ground or gesso. Paint takes time to dry, and painters tyically come back to a painting over a period of weeks or months to apply successive layers. Et voila: layers are born. This is just the way it is. I guess there are single layer monocolour minimalist paintings, but even something like an Agnes Martin has a carefully prepared ground several layers. Do we need an article on single-layer paintings? No. There is no need for this article, or other articles like
  • walking by moving legs
  • breathing by inhaling
  • writing with words
  • chewing while eating 198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are missing something here. Fresco, watercolour, & most gouache/bodycolour/chalk dry within seconds to a couple of hours, and don't ever or at least usually work in layers, nor I think does tempera, so the concept was new at the start of oil painting. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it the opposite? "Working in layers" is the optical blending of a fast-drying medium, rather than being able to re-work paint in a still-workable state - even if the second is applied in layers, the layers don't necessarily remain in the finished work. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the article, and say this. But it is optical blending. Apparently you can do it in tempera though (says the article), but not in fresco. Note Wet-on-wet too. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you had ever painted, you would know that one almost never applies paint (or watercolour for that matter) in a single layer. There's really no "single layer" painting process other than paint by numbers.198.58.171.47 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And fresco for one, as I keep saying. If you're going to be a smartarse, at least get it right. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fresco? I looked that up on Wikipedia: "In painting buon fresco, a rough underlayer called the arriccio is added to the whole area to be painted and allowed to dry for some days." I'm not trying to be a smartass. I am simply pointing out the fact that all painting process except painting by numbers typically involve painting in successive layers to achieve a visual effect. Even painting your kitchen typically involves a primer and two coats of paint.. aka "painting in layers".198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how fresco works, that's not what "painting in layers" means. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - the arriccio is plain plaster, as is the next intonaco coat. Then the painting begins, and in "true fresco" has to be finished in a few hours for each area. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article can definitely be beefed up enough to stand on its own, but not on the back of just one citation. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn it into a disambiguation page that links to Glaze (painting technique), Fat over lean, Wet-on-wet, and any other relevant pages. "Working in layers" is a somewhat ambiguous term; to develop the topic would require repeating everything that's in those other articles. Ewulp (talk) 01:33, 27 November 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. SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buckskinning

Buckskinning (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)

PROD reverted without improvement. Buckskinning is an important hobby for many to be sure. The article was original research in 2008. A search today turns up blogs and people trying to sell magazines, books, and gear, but I saw no reliable independent sources. Rhadow (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep So now you're claiming that hobbies are another of the things on your list of "these topics just can't be notable". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's easy to find sources such as Preserving Western History. The nominator should not be using WP:PROD for "an important hobby" because that process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". Andrew D. (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No Wikipedian reason given for deletion. So, it's a stub that needs work including sourcing. Many sources exist, and it certainly meets wp:notability and should be covered in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. A quick google-book search shows at least six books with buckskinning in the title, and many-many hits with contents in the book. It seems a notable enough hobby. The article text seems reasonable, if stubby, and there is a pic - required article improvement seems to be limited to citing a source or two (after verifying the information is correct).Icewhiz (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goodness me, this is the proverbial Keep per nom. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no policy-based rationale for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 01:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bucksnort, Tennessee

Bucksnort, Tennessee (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 PROD was reverted without improvement. This article, all original research, describes a town that does not exist. The I-40 exit sign is a curiosity, but the text that describes a "small unincorporated community" fails WP:V I have found no reliable references that describe this ghost town. Rhadow (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator withdraws -- WP:SNOWBALL -- But make sure the references go in. Rhadow (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: other editors might prove me wrong, but looking at the edit history, I'm not 100% convinced the page isn't a joke that got out of hand ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND as the place clearly exists, is sign-posted and people live there. Andrew D. (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPLACE. As Andrew D states, the place exists, people live there, there are numerous business named Bucksnort this and bucksnort that. ([7],[8] for instance). Notability is not temporary.Jacona (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEO. Past practice has been that no inhabited place ever gets deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly exists as an inhabited place, which is enough to pass WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in line with WP:GEO, snowie, snowie, snow snow:))Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to exist, is sign-posted and on Google Maps. AusLondonder (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- A look at the Google map shows four features, none particularly notable, that by this logic, should all have articles: Epison Hollow, Bucksnort Road, Duke Hollow, and Spence Hollow. Bucksnort is a great name, but doesn't need an article. There are still no reliable reference to establish notability. Rhadow (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The USGS says that Bucksnort is an unincorporated community.1314762 It's for real, and the place name has a brief book mention.[9]. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have demonstrated the place exists. That is all we need to show for such small places. I just wish our coverage of small places in Nigeria was half as good as it is for those in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
plus places, big and small, from numerous other non-western countries....Coolabahapple (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator after references found and added to article. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fire chief's vehicle

Fire chief's vehicle (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)
  • Keep - References now supplied. A PROD was reverted without improvement. Not a single reference for this piece of original research since 2008. No evidence of notability. None of the claims are verified WP:V. Rhadow (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No evidence that WP:BEFORE has been followed or that alternatives to deletion have been considered. Sources are, of course, easy to find such as First to the Flames: The History of Fire Chief Vehicles. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a century of so of clearly evidenced history for these, and they are often the first motor cars in a town.[10]. I would echo the comments about BEFORE. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the AD's. Plenty of sourcing exists to establish notability. Lepricavark (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (or merge). This nominator has a bad habit of nominating articles that he prodded and that were subsequently deprodded, without performing WP:BEFORE. This is like the fifth one tonight that I have seen wehre this editor failed to do BEFORE. The subject is notable based on available refs.198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just added 13 sources. Changing to Speedy K. It's, like, a keep.198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 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 Noori#Begum_Gul_Bakaoli_Sarfarosh_.282015.29. MBisanz talk 04:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aik Tha Badshah

Aik Tha Badshah (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)

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable song.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Noori. I can verify the song exists but can't find coverage that justifies a stand-alone article. [11] [12] power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • "Noori unveil Aik Tha Badshah - The Express Tribune". 14 June 2015.
  • "Aik Tha Badshah: Is Noori declaring war on Pakistan's rock bands?".
  • Salahuddin, Zahra (15 June 2015). "After a ten-year hiatus, does Noori still reign supreme?".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 09:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto authors

Esperanto authors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a list of notable authors of Esperanto literature. However the vast majority of the article is a massive set of redlinks, highlight that perhaps these authors are not in fact notable. Most of it is unreferenced. Since there is already a category on Writers of Esperanto literature, that category should be enough. This list is not useful. Canterbury Tail talk 12:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, AFD is not cleanup. If there are redlinks that don't merit articles, the solution is to remove them, and then the sole question is whether there are enough viable links to merit a list, and there certainly are. Category:Writers of Esperanto literature includes 47 individuals. Per WP:LISTPURP this is a proper index of articles, and per WP:NOTDUP the category is not "enough" because there's no reason not to have complementary methods of organization/navigation. The list also can be made sortable and annotated with basic biographical data and example works, which the category cannot. postdlf (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Postdlf. Issues can be fixed by editing. --Michig (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No issue with the article itself, although consider renaming it (as per suggestions by @postdlf and remove every red-linked entry. Ajf773 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article itself has no added utility over a category. In fact it is basically just a category masquerading as an article. I have started adding a bit of identifying information. I have also found at least one blue link that was clearly wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - all good points, thank you all, I'm willing to withdraw the nomination. Canterbury Tail talk 00:43, 20 November 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. MBisanz talk 04:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillization of Esperanto

Cyrillization of Esperanto (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)

There is a single reference (with a Cyrillization which differs from that in the article in case of h and ĥ), but hardly notable. Burzuchius (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Esperanto orthography might be a decent {{R from misnomer}} target, but apart from a description of one (unreadable) web page, I can't find any evidence this was ever used by anyone, and sources that I would expect would cover it (such as Ulrich Lins' book "Dangerous Language — Esperanto and the Decline of Stalinism") don't mention the use of Cyrillic script for Esperanto at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:49, 25 November 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 Ishqbaaaz. North America1000 02:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ishqbaaaz (soundtrack)

Ishqbaaaz (soundtrack) (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)

Soundrack album for a marginally notable TV series. Fails general notability criteria, and every point of notability criteria for music (albums). —usernamekiran(talk) 10:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Update: I change my nominatio to "merge". The explanation has been provided below. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete my page. What I have to do now? - Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 13:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: As noted on your talk page, it would have been helpful if you'd created a merge discussion at Talk:Ishqbaaaz instead of going through the AfD process. And frankly, it might have saved time all around if you'd boldly turned the soundtrack article into a redirect and reverted Siddiqsazzad001's content extraction at Ishqbaaaz, since he didn't discuss the changes beforehand. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on my talkpage. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Merging it to Ishqbaaaz will require removing additional content like Song Detail and Credits section. The soundtrack is notable enough and if searched more sources can be found easily. Add Template:Refimprove and keep it. Thank You JayB91 (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JayB91: Respectfully, the above is a super-weak argument. "The soundtrack is notable enough". OK, so where is the significant coverage from independent sources that would support this? "...more sources can be found easily" Great, where? You're basically playing both sides of the argument, claiming that it's notable, providing no sources then suggesting that we wait for the notability to arrive down the road. That's not how we do stuff. If we have to wait for notability to arrive, then we obviously created the article too early. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This the "imdb cant used be as a reliable source", and "pokemon test" situation. Most of the sources available are the "film/tv media gossip" types sources. Few are even close to tabloids. It lacks core depth, and WP:SIGCOV as whole. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article creator has twice removed the AfD tag from the article, the second time through commenting it out after a bot restored it. I have reinstated the tag, this AfD may need to be relisted due to it not being properly tagged for a portion of the AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Ishqbaaaz - Premature creation of standalone soundtrack article. Article creator has failed to establish standalone notability and notability is not inherited. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 20 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roop and Tom

Roop and Tom (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)

Can't find anything in reliable sources showing these radio hosts are notable Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not familiar enough with the British overnight radio scene to vote delete, but there's not enough sourcing for a keep vote either. I can't find any references that suggest notability, and don't know if they're still performing. If they have had a terrestrial radio broadcast for 10 years it's likely they are notable; It's also possible they were cancelled years ago and were never notable. The last non-bot edit (excluding the AfD) was in 2011. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Google hits other than very old mentions: BBC Radio 7 was merged into Radio 4 Extra several years ago, and their own website no longer works. Not notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Roop Who and Tom Nobody according to google. Szzuk (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that it's too soon for this article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIA Formula 3 International Championship

FIA Formula 3 International Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created WP:TOOSOON. While the formation of the championship has been announced, there are very few details available about the structure of the championship or regulations. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a case of something that, yes, the article has been created too soon, but now that it is here, it makes more sense to keep it than to delete it and just have to recreate it at a later date. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the main source for the article does not even know what the championship will be called. It talks about an "International" series and a "Regional" series, but it is unclear as to whether these are separate championships or two titles awarded as part of one championship. The most that can be said of the championship at the moment is that it is planned for 2019 and is planned to see two existing championships merge (which is not uncommon). That does not seem to be enough to justify an article for now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the championship hasn't even official name now and hasn't any confirmation about other crucial parts of itself. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this is not even a firm proposal right now. The only thing that can be said is the FIA want to set up a new F3 series, which is not sufficient for an article, and as with many proposed motorsport series, it may never come to pass. QueenCake (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't know enough about the sport to know for sure, but this doesn't feel like a WP:TOOSOON violation. Something new launching in early 2019 is technically more than 12 months away, but likely has sufficient coverage to justify an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: was relisting this really necessary? There are three editors supporting the deletion, one opposed and one who is opposed but acknowledges that the case for keeping the article is weak. I really don't see how this is vague enough to require further discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough details are known to justify this article. They haven't even confirmed when it will take place.Tvx1 00:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- too soon for an article; unclear when the event would take place or what it would even be called. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 20 November 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. MBisanz talk 04:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naim Edge

Naim Edge (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)

Source searches are only providing passing mentions; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 04:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've renamed the article Naim Records and added some additional material and citations. Headhitter (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, I think the refs added, especially the Sound On Sound one which is rather in depth, should be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if the final decision is not to keep this as a separate article, it should certainly be merged and redirected to Naim Audio rather than simply deleted, as the label was a spin-off from the very well-known maker of high-end audio equipment. Richard3120 (talk) 01:04, 20 November 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conrado Co

Conrado Co (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:NBADMINTON. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meet WP:NBADMINTON #3 and #5.Stvbastian (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is false information. #3 states: "Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country (e.g. Canadian Open, German Open, Slovak International)." Co has not done that. #5 states: Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics. Philippines has only competed at the Olympics once. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete didn't receive significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and didn't pass WP:BADMINTON as already explained above. He only played "Open Events" which didn't met #3 in WP:BADMINTON. There are several layers of their tournaments which are clearly explained in Badminton World Federation article.  — Ammarpad (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He meet #3 WP:NBADMINTON. Won the Taipei Open in the doubles event.Stvbastian (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Multiple national champion, won the Taipei Open Florentyna (talk) 12:26, 19 November 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. Essentially, only one editor argued for keeping and nobody agreed with them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Harchick

AfDs for this article:
Jonathan Harchick (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)
  • Comment The first nomination was over ten years ago in 2006. The 2nd nomination has been placed in 2017, so much has happened since then. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep; on the contrary, the 2006 discussion is absolutely irrelevant. Much has happend since then, and though most references cite YouTube, and though many projects take place there, I believe the subject is far more than a simple YouTuber. Counting to 100,000 (with proof) and being one of three people in history to do so is extremely notable. Not only that but he has uploaded the longest videos on YouTube, numerous times. Look it up and he's the first one to pop up. It's not easy and takes much rendering. Harchick has been featured on numerous news outlets for his achievements and I believe if someone were to come across one of his many projects, this'd be a beneficial and efficient "hub" that lists much of his doings nicely. The "wikia" that has been provided by SmokeyJoe is understandably added but not a good place to detail Harchick's deeds. It's very unreliable, unsourced, and poorly made. Notice how one out of the five bullets lists his "biggest fan", which is untrue, opinionated, and likely vandalism. In the past, Harchick was denied because, while he'd done some arguably impressive things with his career, he hadn't done anything significant. As of 2017 (just take a look at what has been in his current article:) he's done quite a bit. I say if Jonathan Mann meets the requirements for a Wikipedia article (and notice Mann also appears in the Harchick article), then Harchick himself should be denoted a Wikipedia detailing the highlights of his notable acts. I know "not just anyone can have a Wikipedia article", which has disputed for many people across the years, but I took this in to account and finally feel as if Harchick has done enough. He meets the guidelines, criteria, and policies of Wikipedia. While exceptions are made and in some cases, it's a stretch I also believe the following: it's unnecessary to deny Wikipedia of potential information. There's no harm done in keeping this article and its information around. All it's doing is adding to the knowledge contributed within Wikipedia's database, and expanding the topics it covers. Take someone on Instagram, a photographer perhaps, with 100,000 followers and write them up a Wikipedia — that is absolutely not okay. I understand that this doesn't and shouldn't occur. This scenario is not what's occuring. Harchick has done notable acts over the course of 10-11 years, as detailed in his current article and in turn should possess an article. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upon rereading Joe's nomination request, I see that "reference bombing" is mentioned. That was not an intention and was completely accidental. When adding sources, it simply couldn't be decided which one was better so both were thrown in, which as a problem, wasn't considered. I'll see if I can pick out some notable sources.
Though I hope validity of sources isn't the main issue here. Because practically every article is indeed credible. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing to be considered; many of the references supplied were actually just used to prove certain chunks of information are true according to Harchick. For example, the fact that much of his YouTube accounts were deleted was detailed in a video of his. This specific citation was not provided to add to the credibility of the overall article but was simply provided to verify that individual statement. Other citations HAVE been provided to contribute to the overall article's credibility, though. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are proper uses of many supporting references. My wish is that people writing new articles would put the notability-attesting references in the first save. Then add further supporting references after. You put 26 references in on the first save. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability according to: WP:BIO and WP:Creative
* Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Very unique contributions of which none other has attempted. Additionally, Vsauce claims at a panel that content by Harchick "wouldn't be found anywhere else". [2]
* 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. Harchick was the subject of a Tosh.0 episode.
* 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. Longest video on YouTube and one of three to count to 100,000.
* The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Though not recent, Harchick has won two local awards due to contributions sponsored by well-known Robert Morris University. They were won around the time of Harchick's first nomination for deletion and perhaps these awards were why an article was proposed in the first place. But like I said, a lot has happend since the first nomination. And in all technicality, the fact that awards were won do meet the requirements.
Alex, reference bombing is an unfortunate trend of all Wikipedia-spammers. It makes it very hard to review the notability-attesting sources. Notability should be demonstrated by a minimum or 2, no more than 3 sources. Independent, reliable (not amazon.com or youtube), secondary source (making commentary or analysis of the topic, and directly addressing the topic (the person Jonathan Harchick). Can you list these 2 or 3? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course reference bombing is unfortunate. I'd agree that it should be prevented. However I want to say that it was not intentional during this article's creation. And if it's any consolation, references can also be removed. For the sake of neutrality, did you attempt to find any notable sources, yourself?
Are the news outlets provided, like starring on The Today Show not be "credible"? I mean, I'd say they're certainly reliable and offer coverage on Harchick's notability quite nicely. Also, ABC News is a widely acclaimed news source, correct?
On the other hand, I'm aware that in the "filmography" section, many news outlets that Harchick's been featured on have not been cited in the article so perhaps I can uncover some. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they were reliable sources, that is not significant coverage. It is light relief. They are featuring him for light relief, not covering him. As secondary sources, they are very very shallow. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is not the guiness book of world records. We do not create articles on people who do utterly pointless and meaningless things just to get attention for themselves. Considering that most of the sources are Youtube, and we should discount blog sources as well, there is a total lack of substantive coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (Counter)As stated numerous times, "getting attention for themselves" is not specified by the subject and is simply a rumor or estimate created by some of the media. No one can be sure the feats are simply for attention. It was even stated that the channels are hobbies done in the subjects spare time. "Utterly pointless and meaningless" are also heavily opinionated terms in which we try to avoid on Wikipedia. From a neutral point of view, it can be said that what the subject has done is indeed notable according to Wikipedia's criteria. Also stated numerous times, what would be your input on Jonathan Mann and his Wikipedia article? Are they not one in the same? And, sure, this is not a Guinness Book of World Records book, but notable tasks are indeed worth mentioning on the site. What are your thoughts on: List of people who have walked across the United States? Why do they receive an article? Sure the task takes a longer time to complete. Not only that, but a great amount of endurance. But proportions-of-achievement aside, large tasks that have "made a difference online"/"been a milestone online"/"been a notable event all around" are not only worth mentioning, but meet Wikipedia's criteria. Please refer to the bullets below.
Remember that notability according to: WP:BIO and WP:Creative states:
* Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Very unique contributions of which none other has attempted. Additionally, Vsauce claims at a panel that content by Harchick "wouldn't be found anywhere else". [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. Harchick was the subject of a Tosh.0 episode.
* 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. Longest video on YouTube and one of three to count to 100,000.
* The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Though not recent, Harchick has won two local awards due to contributions sponsored by well-known Robert Morris University. They were won around the time of Harchick's first nomination for deletion and perhaps these awards were why an article was proposed in the first place. But like I said, a lot has happend since the first nomination. And in all technicality, the fact that awards were won do meet the requirements.
Tasks completed by the subject have not only been 'Googled' countless times, but are also the first result to show up. It should be argued that his Wikipedia would be an efficient 'hub' for a recollection of all of his achievements for the ones who are truly interested.
-- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have struck through your duplicate !vote; you are more than welcome to comment as much as you wish, however you must only !vote (Keep / Delete in bold) once. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-truck-jb-hunt-trans/j-b-hunt-wal-mart-climb-aboard-teslas-electric-truck-idUSKBN1DH1GH
  2. ^ "New Creator Showcase Panel at Summer In The City". Ten Eighty Magazine. Retrieved November 12, 2017.
  3. ^ "New Creator Showcase Panel at Summer In The City". Ten Eighty Magazine. Retrieved November 12, 2017.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite the assertions of notability, I cannot find sufficient significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete –Because this person doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE and lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. In addition to being largely referenced to unreliable sources, more than half (14/27) are YouTube sources. None of the remaining sources discuss him in detail apart from profile in upwork.com which is of course a commercial platform for connecting clients who pay  — Ammarpad (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hm, I'm starting to see a pattern here. Harchick may meet the notability but many seem to be unsatisfied with the sourcing... -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:ENT and significant RS coverage not found. Mostly fancruft and trivia. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment Notability according to: WP:BIO and WP:Creative
* Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Very unique contributions of which none other has attempted. Additionally, Vsauce claims at a panel that content by Harchick "wouldn't be found anywhere else". [1]

References

  1. ^ "New Creator Showcase Panel at Summer In The City". Ten Eighty Magazine. Retrieved November 12, 2017.
* 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. Harchick was the subject of a Tosh.0 episode.
* 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. Longest video on YouTube and one of three to count to 100,000.
* The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Though not recent, Harchick has won two local awards due to contributions sponsored by well-known Robert Morris University. They were won around the time of Harchick's first nomination for deletion and perhaps these awards were why an article was proposed in the first place. But like I said, a lot has happend since the first nomination. And in all technicality, the fact that awards were won do meet the requirements. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand at this point the article will most likely be deleted, but it's such a shame that all the debaters seem to be ignoring my points. He does meet the criteria if you'll just take a look at the data I've supplied. In the above bullets, he does seem notable according to WP:BIO and WP:Creative. I can understand the admins' nit-pickiness regarding the sourcing, but notability shouldn't be an issue. For Pete Sake, Shane Dawson's wife has a Wikipedia account for some reason, even though she meets none of the guidelines and has done nothing notable. Harchick has accomplished feats many Wikipedia-article-owning celebrities have never amounted to. Shame.
But I can't argue against a team of admins. Go ahead and overlook the statements I've included. But in the future, when nominating articles, read each debate thoroughly. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:00, 25 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson (disambiguation)

Emma Watson (disambiguation) (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)

None of the entries listed have articles. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They don't need to have articles, although one of them does, Let There Be Sunshine. They need to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article, see MOS:DABMENTION. The disambiguation page then gives information to the reader on all Emma Watsons we have information on. Nothing to be gained from deletion either. Dabs are cheap and this has 4 valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with DABMENTION but, except the primary topic, all other 3 entries are non-notable and unlikely to be searched:
  1. Emma, the novel character is not mentioned in Tess Gerritsen as per DABMENTION, neither do the novel have an article.
  2. I doubt how likely is that to search for a character in an unfinished novel.
  3. Emma in sitcom The Andy Griffith Show is only a recurring character that appeared in just 6 in a total of 249 episodes.
Dabs are for articles sharing same title or sometimes notable non-existing titles that are likely to be searched. I don't see that necessity here. Otherwise, as you said if we are adding all names we have information on, then every BLP here will need a dab since names are always shared. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let There Be Sunshine, have you looked at MOS:DABMENTION? The criterion for an entry is: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. Nothing about notability and all the entries clearly meet it except the 2nd, which, as you say, no longer has any mention of Emma Watson (although it did when the entry was added). With that deleted, 3 valid entries remain. Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've jsut added a 5th entry, which meets MOS:DABMENTION too. Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about notability - Well, that is a COMMONSENSE. --Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bar for inclusion within an article (and hence for a mention in a dab page) is lower than notability: see WP:NOTEWORTHY. – Uanfala 10:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I mentioned common sense. If notability is not considered, then every BLP here will have a dab with at least two 2 entries. I don't think any of these entries in EW are likely to be search.--Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The main character in an Austen novel fragment is certainly notable and the rest scraped together are enough to push it over the line. I'm leaving out the 2011 Ladies' World Pea Shooting Champion because that's unsourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. All the entries link to articles with the briefest possible mentions: I wouldn't encourage the creation of dab pages consisting solely of such entries, but now that they've been created I equally don't see the point of trying to get them deleted. – Uanfala 10:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: all reasonable dab-mention entries. PamD 15:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 10:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By itself, the Austen character would require disambiguation. If the dab page didn't exist, the character could be handled with a TWODAB hatnote, but the dab page suffices as there are some other legitimate, albeit marginal, entries. older ≠ wiser 12:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bkonrad. Satisfies DABMENTION. James (talk/contribs) 21:02, 20 November 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 Monster.com#History.  Sandstein  09:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JOBTRAK

JOBTRAK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Originally a WP:SPA creation with an unusual Questions section which linked to several Yahoo Answers items about how to find internships and jobs. A Highbeam search does find some coverage around the late 1990s - routine announcements of partnerships, surveys - but falling short of the substantial coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. The summary coverage at Monster.com#History seems sufficient regarding this acquired former company. AllyD (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Monster.com#History where there is some information about this company. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. (non-admin closure)  FITINDIA  18:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Techvaganza

Techvaganza (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)

Local college event with very little substantially sourced claim for notability, fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG, only very minor mentions in secondary sources. Muhandes (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- entirely promotional while listing one source. I'm surprised it survived for almost 9 years in this state. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 20 November 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  09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail (Pakistan)

Daily Mail (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this is merely a news website not a proper as the website or this article claims. the only source cited is a press release taken from the website of this newspaper. Saqib (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it. Article has to pass WP:NWEB which it fails. Störm (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. I did not notice that this is a WP:A9 case.  Sandstein  07:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderland (Bandari album)

Wonderland (Bandari album) (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)

Album by nonnotable band, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandari (AVC).  Sandstein  07:39, 19 November 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  09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan de Bruycker

Dylan de Bruycker (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:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. FilFootyGuy (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines Football League is not a Fully professional league per WP:FPL as required by NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (for now) - at the age of 19 it is only a matter of time that De Bruycker makes his senior debut, but for now it is simply WP:TOOSOON. Article can easily be recreated when subject makes debut. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, without prejudice against recreation in the future. Simply too soon for an article considering he has yet to play in a fully professional league and/or play for the national team. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:48, 25 November 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  09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Ali Haider

AfDs for this article:
The Best of Ali Haider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Alternatively, redirect for searching purpose. Störm (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Best of" albums are often non-notable. My Google search yielded no evidence that this album is notable. I do not think that a redirect is of any use, as the search results would show Ali Haider anyway. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:02, 19 November 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  09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan

Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in WP:RS. Vanity organization. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. How this lasted this long I have no idea, but this is a pretty obvious job for G11man. Up, up, and delete! The Bushranger One ping only 08:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SXMJobs.com

SXMJobs.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 06:41, 19 November 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. WP:SNOW; made up by problematic editor. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunthagon

Hunthagon (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 neologism. There are no references included in the article and a WP:BEFORE search did not provide reliable sources to prove the subject notable. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 06:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 06:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that this has encyclopedic, as opposed to dictionary, usefulness. For that matter, it is not even evident that it is a standard word enough to put in a dictionary, but that is not the issue we face because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is something that an immature editor made up and inserted into the encyclopedia. It does not exist as a notable mathematical concept, as opposed to the similar Chiliagon, discussed by Descartes and other notable philosophers and mathematicians. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing found in Google scholar. Close to an A11 speedy, but it doesn't directly say that its author made up the term. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. Appears to come from here in 2009. Note that apparently the article has no idea how a Schläfli symbol works? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if not good-faith WP:MADEUP, it still seems like a WP:HOAX. What is the derivation of the prefix "huntha"? It's not listed at Numeral prefix, either in the Greek section (where we find penta-, octo-, dodeca- etc.) or elsewhere. A polygon with 100,000 sides would be a decakismyriagon, surely? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:40, 19 November 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. Michig (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Heights High School

Sterling Heights High School (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 am both the creator of this article and a graduate of the school. I actually graduated in the same class as the current principal, and had multiple classes with him while in high school (at least two, and possible more). I was on the school's quiz bowl team, the last year that the first quiz bowl coach was coaching, and know that one time the Macomb Daily ran an article showcasing ethnic and religious diversity in Macomb County by mentioning that Sterling Heights High School had Mormon and Messianic Jewish students. I was among the 5 Mormons at the time, and I could name at least one of the Messianic Jews. However after having read the debate on the notability of schools that ran at RfC recently, I have become convinced that high schools are not default notable. When the High School Website (that I helped create a former iteration of) and the school district website are the only sources listed, it is hard to see this as much more than a directory. My search for additional sources didnt show up much more than sports coverage, and the occasional story about criminal violence done or threatened by a student. I am sure if the Macomb Daily's archives were more easily searchable I would have come across a student of the week article or two about the school. OK, the 2017 prom in photos was published by the Macomb Daily. Well, OK, here [13] is an article from earlier this year about Sterling Heights High School being one of 54 in Michigan recognized as an academic state champ. This is in a state with about 500 school districts, each one required to have at least one high school. I work for Detroit Public Schools Community District, which has 21 high schools, admitedly the most in the state, but by no means the only case of a multi high school district. This is without counting all the charter and private high schools in Michigan, or the many defunct high schools in the state. I have to admit it does not help that I have seen many high school articles abused as magnets for blatant vandalism, but at least in the balance of the American education system, it has traditionally been colleges and universities where academic policy is derived from, not high schools. I don't think Sterling Heights High School, or lots of other high schools in the US for that matter, pass notability guidelines. My deep connections make this probably an easy article to start with, but I have a suspicion that lots and lots of high schools we have articles on do not pass notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I reviewed the history, and realized that I did not in fact create this article. I think I was confused because I considered creating the article at one point, but found it already existed. I still stand by all my other points in the nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator is misrepresenting the results of the recent RfC and the nomination is, in my opinion, contaminated by their personal involvement. Who cares whether the nominator was in the quiz bowl, or who their classmates were? Normally, people are biased in favor of keeping an article because of personal connections. This contrarian nominator is now biased against this article because of his personal involvement. Biased nominations should be rejected. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OP's personal links with the school are not in question but are not relevant to this discussion either. Unless there is a very strong and better argument, I'm !voting keep JMWt (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And as a comment to the nominator. As a general rule all high schools are considered notable and are kept in an AfD situation with the exception of it they fail actual verifiability. Just want to save you some time of going through a lot of high school articles and nominating them when they'll end up getting kept. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education and Wikipedia:Notability_(high_schools). Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  This article was created here, by User:Amel586.  The creator of this article has not received notification of this AfD on their talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  As per the school web site, the school is "Ranked #1 High School in Macomb County by U.S.NEWS & World Report".  With WP:BEFORE D1 for Google news I found: "The Battle of the Bands winner in 2016 America's Thanksgiving Day Parade is ...Congratulations to the Marching Stallions from Sterling Heights High School, By Dustin Block, Posted: 3:30 PM, November 28, 2016 Updated: 10:42 AM, November 29, 2016, [14] .  See America's Thanksgiving Parade which shows that the parade has some national coverage.  Also, the school's band performances are recorded on the web.  There is also news about terrorism at the school.  People in the central U.S. know that public high schools attract attention for every football and basketball game that they play.  Newspapers mention the school without explanation, which means they consider the school to be an object of familiarity.  This list of issues to be found in Google books goes on.  Further, the nominator does not make any attempt to defend the alleged absence of notability as worthy of policy-based deletion that overcomes WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, and at another AfD the nominator documents that his vision is to merge the article to the school district.  I am not making a !vote now because WP:V and WP:BLP are core content policies, and there appear to be issues that need resolution.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not think people understood why I disclosed my conflict of interest connections. I have added some links to mentions found on google books. I have also added the US News and World Report profile to the article. I am not sure if the google books mentions can be incorporated into the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I have seen a schools RfC mentioned several times recently. Could someone provide a link? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is why WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is helpful – not because it is an argument one way or another, but that it is a strong indicator to consider alternatives rather than bringing a high school to AfD. This school certainly passes WP:GNG. WP is broad enough to include most high schools, which as a matter of course gather notability as high school history and activities are usually well-documented. Time and effort is better spent improving articles when there is clearly plenty of source material (I wouldn't be surprised if there is an entire book). What's likely to happen here? The outcome here will probably be a "keep," the second most likely outcome is "merge," and there is no third likely outcome, so why not either improve the article or WP:MERGE rather than launching a long discussion? Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The highly controversial RfC close even specified that this should not lead to a flood of AfDs! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per long standing consensus. If a school passes WP:V then it is presumed notable and of local interest, see WP:LOCAL.Egaoblai (talk) 03:33, 23 November 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  09:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mica Mosbacher

Mica Mosbacher (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 individual. Seems to be written as an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from her famous husband. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete her level of being a political operative is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 25 November 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  09:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Emmons Chapin

Frederick Emmons Chapin (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)

Finishing nomination by IP 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031, whose rationale is detailed here. ansh666 01:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per the claim of being one of the first law clerks to the Supreme Court of the US. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I agree with John Pack Lambert that "being a clerk to a justice of the US supreme court is not in and of itself a sign of notability", as the article states Frederick Chapin was also one of first such clerks, beginning the institution of SCOTUS clerking. —cnzx (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough and as he is a historical figure and there is sufficient sourcing (which is usually more difficult with historical figures since sources are generally from books.Patapsco913 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 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  09:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas H. Fitnam

Thomas H. Fitnam (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)

Finishing nomination by IP 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031, whose rationale is detailed here. ansh666 01:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per the claim (for which I can't immediately see a supporting reference, hence my qualifier) of being one of the first such clerks. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:02, 19 November 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  09:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Curtis Mayflower

The Curtis Mayflower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, nothing much past indiscriminate local puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A review in No Depression certainly isn't local puff, and the group received a substantial piece in Worcester Today, far more than indiscriminate coverage of local listings. The Worcester Telegram also gave them serious, substantial coverage at [15]. There's also this review, this interview, and this (not as good) interview. A little bit of coverage from the Boston Herald, too ([16]). There's enough coverage here to hurdle WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Band fails WP:GNG and have little to no secondary sources that discuss them with WP:INDEPTH.Celestina007 (talk) 18:18, 05 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: The Telegram interview is a good cite from a reliable source. But that's it so far; website interviews and one paragraph pieces don't meet the GNG: 0+0+0+0 still = 0. Show me at least one other piece (and preferably not from the Worcester media market) from a reliable source of the length of that Telegram interview and I'll consider it worth keeping. Ravenswing 17:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No Depression is one of the most important magazines in folk and roots music - its name is itself a genre term synonymous with alternative country - and it granted Curtis Mayflower a full review. That's certainly one more. Chubbles (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient coverage among these to establish notability: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. --Michig (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that I added the Telegram article to the piece as well as the Revue piece that Michig dug up, which is international press coverage. Chubbles (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Per request for fresh assessment with resisting: FWIW Chubbles, "Revue" website is international, I suppose, the way anything on the web is international, but it is unfortunately a weak source per their editorial policy of encouraging artists to submit promotional content. I'm kind of bothered that this band hasn't really accomplished much of significance. I'm also a bit troubled that there are not that many sources beyond regional coverage. Yet that is not a disqualifier, and some of the coverage displays independent, third party recognition. That, plus the aforementioned review in No Depression Magazine is enough to squeak it through wikipedia notability criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:30, 21 November 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 List of programs broadcast by Cooking Channel.  Sandstein  08:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Goddess

Spice Goddess (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 a television cooking show, which just states that the show existed and sources the fact exclusively to its own (deadlinked) primary source website and a (deadlinked) episode list on a TV Guide knockoff. It's the ability to reliably source the article to media coverage, not an automatic inclusion freebie for every show that existed at all, that governs whether a show gets over WP:TVSHOW or not -- but there's no evidence of reliable source coverage being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:53, 19 November 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 Nadia G. North America1000 02:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia G's Bitchin' Kitchen

Nadia G's Bitchin' Kitchen (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 a television cooking show, referenced entirely to IMDb and primary sources (its dead profile on the website of the channel that used to carry it and the host's own self-published foodblog) with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. As always, every television show does not get an automatic free pass over WP:TVSHOW just because it can be nominally verified as existing -- it needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media to qualify for an article, but there's none here. Bearcat (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Nadia G. A separate article about her show is redundant, and there isn't enough notability nor enough third-party sources for it to stand on its own anyway. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 02:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:52, 19 November 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  08:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Judge Gallery

AfDs for this article:
Johnny Judge Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. The Gallery was short lived and beyond a few press notices around the time of its launch there are no further references online and no way of developing the article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to clear our notability guidelines. No reliable sources to support the article exist. Lourdes 09:29, 19 November 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  08:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Khan (singer)

Rashid Khan (singer) (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 Subject does not appear to meet GNG or guidelines for musicians

  • The sourcing is week and is not enough to justify a standalone article
  • Written in a promotional tone and not even close to neutral Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although some of the nominator's arguments might fall under WP:NOTCLEANUP, and it's difficult to search for reliable sources due to him sharing his name with an Afghan cricketer, the subject of the article doesn't appear to be significant enough to warrant his own WP article ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough to pass the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 25 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Staehli

Nina Staehli (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:NARTIST. Despite 34 references, I see very little substantial coverage apart, perhaps, from one article on swissart.ch.

The article has been created and maintained by the subject [23] and appears to serve no other purpose than self-promotion. Rentier (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Staehli is listed in SIKART with a documentation level of 2 out of 5, indicating low notability. The scant literature noted there also doesn't give me much hope that there is enough her for an article.  Sandstein  09:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously an autobio. I initially had hope for the article, but after trimming many CV entries, I went on a reference earch and came up with nothing in Google books. The article references are mostly passing mentions. If you've been an artist for a decade it is not unreasonable to expect that there would be a few decent in-depth articles on your work. Fails GNG and WP:ARTIST.198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability guidelines for artists. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 25 November 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; G5 (creation by banned or blocked user), plus no reliable sources.

Jack Maynard

Jack Maynard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no reliable sources found. YouTube is not a additional sources. HINDWIKI • CHAT 01:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. HINDWIKI • CHAT 01:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:14, 19 November 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. Note to contributors to this discussion: CSD#A7 does not apply to songs (or singles). Michig (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dokkyûn☆Heart

Dokkyûn☆Heart (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 a song by an artist who already has an article fails WP:NSONG, and there's no sources actually covering it, as shown here. theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, WP:CSD#A7.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an A7. 165.91.12.99 (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment the article creation date and meets CSD A7 definition there was no contested PROD from what tell I can tell. Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article that in no way asserts the song is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references, no claim of notability, and my searches give Wiki pages and nothing else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:59, 25 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_November_19&oldid=1142617783"