Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 September	4 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:A7, WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 10:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ghorbanpour

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

Unimportant newcomer trys to become famose with crosswiki articles. --Codc (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 4 September 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) 19:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Yazidis

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

Not a notable ethnic diaspora. A variety of editors have been creating these articles on the presumption that any such diaspora is notable, without any Reliable Sources. Without Reliable Sources, these articles should be deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sources. Nothing suggests that at most this can not be covered with just one line in the general article on Yazidis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not a happening thing. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced; I searched for reliable sources but could not find anything. (similar: Yazidis in France, Yazidis in Canada) JimRenge (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unreferenced. could have been prodded. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funbox (theatre group)

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

CSD declined; not a notable theatrical group. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep already has BBC coverage and three Scottish newspaper pieces referenced in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage for the subject appears sufficient. I have added a source to the article. gongshow talk 01:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What's not sufficiently notable about specific coverage from the BBC, three national papers and a city-wide local paper? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:37, 4 September 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. Speedy deleted per CSD G7 as the author requested deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jiffpom🐶

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

Considered an A7 CSD but declined to do so. Is "having the most social media followers" sufficient for notability? I'm (reluctantly) willing to take Guinness's word on this dog having millions of social media followers. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I honestly think that this is a hoax. How can a dog be on social media? I mean, I've heard of dogs being able to do crazy tricks while on two paws, but seriously? There is no way in hell that a dog can operate a computer like that. Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability; insufficient independent reliable sources. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is a very obvious hoax; even if this dog is real, it would be very unrealistic for a dog to know how to operate a computer with his two paws (like *Scooby-Doo and any other fictional dog; however, those shows ARE meant to be unrealistic while this dog is supposedly doing this in real life, which again is impossible without a serious dog trainer). 98.209.191.37 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 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 "keep". However, article could use improvement (i.e. possible title change according to Legacypac). (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anglophone problem (Cameroon)

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

Original research. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject matter meets WP:GNG, so the article should remain. Ralbegen (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I stand to defend that the article subject matter is the same and please if there is any line contracting or abuse wikipedia rules delete it and keep importance facts. The Anglophone problems is a long history for the English speakers in Cameroon, and a very important subject now and forever. ThanksAbanda bride (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In-depth coverage from a variety of sources, and overall a pretty well-written article. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its a long well written article. Not seeing the problem here. Not sure the title is neutral, but that can be discussed. Legacypac (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could maybe do with some cleanup but assertion by nom that this is original research is wrong. More than enough coverage of this matter in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IMHO, it's poorly written, but is clearly notable. I'd help edit, but I'm not versed well in the details of this issue. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 9 September 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 and improve. As users have pointed out, article needs improvement but consensus is "keep". (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of theatres in Louisville, Kentucky

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

No other city has a list of theatesr. Most of the listings are vague and obscure, sourced only to fan sites and otherwise unreliable sources. Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:V, WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Other cities have lists of theaters (note List of theatres in San Francisco). As a list article, Kentucky Theater and Macauley's Theatre should be sufficient to keep the article. It does need copy-editing; I wouldn't be opposed to a massive reduction in article size. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: if we keep only the notable ones, then we wouldn't have a list now would we? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that Louisville has a better list of theaters than most other cities is not a reason to reduce Louisville's coverage to the level of other cities. As for reliability and verifiability, yes these are important, but every source must be evaluated for the purpose for which it is being used. That most of these listings are no longer in existence shows that this is not a directory but a viewpoint of a cultural history. Unscintillating (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: Still, most of these are unverifiable outside unreliable sites like cinematreasures.org or cinematour.com. Culling it to the reliable ones would make for a very short list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make lists of theatres for other cities with theatres to be listed. bd2412 T 17:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Same problem as above; most are impossible to verify outside unreliable databases. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Without too much effort, I was able to find references for three in guidebooks. I would be amenable to removing all of the entries that are truly unreferenceable, but I suspect that references can be found for at least a few dozen. bd2412 T 18:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I checked out the reference for Westend on cinematreasures.org and it has a picture. You also get a citation to Boxoffice Magazine there for the date of opening of Westend, and a citation to the Courier-Journal of April 17, 1960. The reopening as Cinema West lacks such citations, but thought experiment shows that movie theaters publish advertising regularly in the Courier-Journal. Unscintillating (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only the entries with articles, i.e. notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a directory. Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Lack of notability for a majority of the entries including reliable sources as well as independent coverage that could validate WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a directory. Your argument for LISTN is not so easy for me to rebut, but the nominator didn't mention that, so maybe there is a sense here that there is something about this list that doesn't fit in the norm for LISTN. So maybe you should explain why LISTN is applicable. Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of addresses appears to be a directory. Ajf773 (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Directions to a place in the past is time travel. Is the issue of NOTDIR directed to the theaters that currently exist? My point is that I think this article is a cultural history. Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most are not defunct, they are operating businesses. Also prove the notability regarding cultural heritage, as most of the list entries have no evidence of such. Ajf773 (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - What I could quickly find is that there are 104 rows and 10 of those 104 rows show that the theater is open. J Town 4 is open, but not clearly listed as open or closed. Stony Brook is open but not listed at all. Looking at those numbers and results loosely suggests 15-20% are open. Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Lists aren't always limited to blue links but also generally include well-referenced entries. Louisville has a significant history with respect to theatres, and I don't see why this can't be improved. If it has to be dramatically shortened in the near term, that isn't the worst thing. This article in no way causes harm to the Wikipedia. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please name one entry that would be shortened. Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTDIR are not compelling reasons to delete this. Other complaints can be addressed through improvements to the article. ~Kvng (talk) 02:12, 6 September 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) 19:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Cardone

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

IMO this person fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. He just doesn't have the necessary coverage from Independent Reliable Sources. Out of the 19 references, most are not Reliable Sources (examples: Investopedia, an alumni magazine, a Scientology page, and the subject's own web pages). There are two Huffpost references but they are actually written by the subject. The Mercury News reference quotes him in connection with his house. There are a couple of articles that mention him in connection with sponsoring a Scientology car at NASCAR. That's it, as far as the article's references are concerned.

So, is he notable? His Amazon profile claims him as a "New York Times best selling author" and an "internationally renowned speaker", as well as "the Executive Producer and star of two reality TV shows". But the article does not mention those claims or provide any evidence for them. (The article started out in 2010 as a huge puff piece, but was quickly trimmed down to verifiable information.) He has written several books, apparently self-published; none have Wikipedia articles. One reality TV show, Turnaround King, is mentioned in the article; it apparently aired briefly (2 episodes) on the National Geographic Channel. I found one independent item about Cardone in a Google search: Village Voice. IMO he does not meet our inclusion criteria and the article should be deleted. MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate evidence of notability. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 04:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 15:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sales trainers are almost always non-notable, and no indication he is an exception. His career is the type where we get lots of PR sources, so we need to be vigilant in sorting out those with actual reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For background, Cardone is known to Scientology-watchers for being one of the shrinking number of big donors to the church. He's "popular" in this circle mainly for the over-the-top nature of his public persona and hyper-aggressive self-promotional style. This is covered at niche sites such as Tony Ortega's blog. That blog includes some good journalism along with a lot of commentary, but is not generally an RS for a BLP. Ortega also wrote the Village Voice article mentioned in the nom. None of this translates to meeting WP:NBIO, however. Grayfell (talk) 02:09, 8 September 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) 19:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Erekosima

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

Non-scholarship player who (in his junior year) has not played a single down yet. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. bender235 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found two articles that seem to point toward non-notability: Sports Illustrated and Tuscaloosa News, both review that the athlete's mother came to visit on Senior Day last year. Both articles talk about the emotion of the moment of his mother who was serving in the US Army overseas showing up on a surprise visit. I'm sure it was a really neat moment. And not worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. That info would be a nice addition to an article on the subject, but is not in my opinion basis for inclusion for passing WP:GNG and really does fit the mold of an "and finally..." news article type described in WP:ROUTINE. If other articles surface pointing to a notability measure, I'd be happy to switch position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Erekosima is a backup, non-scholarship player for Alabama who appears to have never played a down. As noted above by Paul, the coverage of Erekosima appears to be limited to the Senior Day incident in which his mother was given leave from military service to make a surprise visit with her son. This coverage fits within WP:BLP1E and is not sufficient to establish notability. Cbl62 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 8 September 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) 19:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Marie Bourgeois

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

Poorly sourced WP:AUTOBIO of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate in a future election, and as a member of the board of directors of a non-notable local musicians' organization. Neither of these are notability claims that get a person into Wikipedia, however -- unless you can demonstrate that they already qualified for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of the election campaign itself a candidate has to win the election, not just run in it, to get a Wikipedia article on that basis, and serving on an organizational board of directors is not an automatic notability freebie either. But two of the four sources present here are primary sources, and the two that represent actual media coverage are purely routine coverage of the type that any candidate for office, and any local musician, could always show. There would have to be a lot more media coverage than this for her to get past WP:GNG, and even if and when she does pass GNG she still won't get to write the article herself. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As far as politics go, as Bearcat has noted, it's just routine coverage: one article in a local newspaper. As a musician, she's apparently better known for ruffling feathers in the Alaska blues community, according to the Anchorage Press free weekly newspaper.[1] As for being CEO of Dynamics Intelligence Inc., it's listed as a startup. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Just running for office doesn't make someone notable and my google search didn't find enough to meet the GNG. The article's sources also fail to prove notability.Sandals1 (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 7 September 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) 19:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Tibbetts

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

Fails WP:GNG, never played a full pro league. Was PROD nominated and endorsed but article creator removed it without any reason, so have to bring this to AfD. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 19:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:08, 4 September 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) 12:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Near-open central vowel

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

Why is there no AfD category for linguistics? Anyway, all this stub really does is create an extra step in what the vast majority of readers are trying to do (get to Near open central unrounded vowel). In nearly every case ɐ refers to the unrounded vowel. The rounded variant is rare and has its own IPA symbol. This info can be integrated into Central vowel if anything really needs to be kept. The other vowels don't have an intermediary article like this. Pariah24 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only IPA symbol for the near-open central vowel is ⟨ɐ⟩ and it doesn't have a defined roundedness. The unrounded and rounded variants do not have dedicated IPA symbols. See Handbook of the IPA, p. 166. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand this justification for why the stub exists, but we're talking about an idea with little to no use in the wild. I've only ever seen ɐ used for the unrounded vowel; never for some hypothetical in-between. If it is being used phonemically for pronunciations there's a 99% chance it will be referring to Near-open central unrounded vowel. And that is the article that contains the useful information (language occurrences and such). Pariah24 (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hypothetical in-between, it just means that ⟨ɐ⟩ can be used for both unrounded and rounded vowels alike. But it's true that the unrounded variant is infinitely more common. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We also have near-close near-back vowel. Do you want to delete it as well? Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no valid deletion rationale, merge conversation can happen elsewhere. Artw (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why not? There is adequate sourcing, and it does in fact appear in the wild, just not in the English language. There is no real reason to delete this (other than its rare, but that isn't a very good reason). RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page akin to near-close near-back vowel per the Handbook of the IPA. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've changed my opinion so I guess the discussion is pretty much over. Pariah24 (talk) 23:50, 5 September 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 notability is not established. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power abuse disorder

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

This article is completely built off PMID 28467994, a "comment" published in a biomedical journal in May of this year, that proposes this is as a medical condition. It is not one yet. This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote this idea; very similar to another AfD currently running, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culinary coaching, where an academic did the same sort of thing, trying to use Wikipedia to lend gravitas to something they are trying to get recognized as a medical discipline. Wikipedia transmits accepted knowledge; it is not a vehicle to promote anything per WP:SOAPBOX.

More specifically, a search of pubmed yields exactly one hit. And again this hit is not OK per WP:MEDRS. The other sources here are Wikipedia articles (not valid) or primary or other sources brought in purely via WP:SYN. So fails GNG looking at MEDRS sources, and is PROMO and SYN. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Jytdog. The references don't appear to discuss the topic of the article; many are incorrectly-formatted hyperlinks to Wikipedia articles Power~enwiki (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Half the refs are to Wikipedia? The ref to WHO and DSM do not support the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already mentioned at de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3._September_2017#Machtmissbrauchsst.C3.B6rung, this is not an established definition and/or disorder, this is only a proposal for a definition. Might be relevant if eventualy established, but not now.--Fano (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing notice of the page at de-WP here. That is very industrious of the creator; a multi-national promotional campaign. Jytdog (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is highly relevant because a lot of people on Wikipedia suffer from Power abuse disorder. Roberttherambler (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - in these diffs I cleaned up the duplicated references and the sources that didn't support anything (links to the mainpage of the WHO, used twice), or citations that supported content that is not about this proposed condition (e.g. the Cochrane source about other uses of aripiprazole; the Cochrane source doesn't mention this proposed condition). There is one source left -- the only source that discusses the proposed condition. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) I have now backed up every single argument by a secondary source.

2) With respect to WP:NOTABILITY, please let me point out what I know from the authors of the review/commentary that I cited on the page: The review/commentary already represents the CONSENSUS of TWO different labs/groups/researcher with partly overlapping and partly very different methologic approaches and had successfully passed anonymous peer review (resulting in the implementation of suggestions/demands of 2 anonymous reviewers). Considering that the editor also suggested/demanded changes in the original Ms, we now have a total of 5 (FIVE) groups/labs/resarchers already having arrived at a consensus on what is written on 'power abuse disorder' in that secondary source.

3) With respect to WP:NOTABILITY, please let me add that suffering from power abuse (ie, abusive behavior by a superior in a one-on-one social interaction in a hierarchy) is a common experience. As a psychotherapist, I generated the page to help wiki readers who have suffered from such an experience realize that may be NOT that "It's me who is dumb/incompetent/a loser/crybaby/confused/too stupid to understand" but that the originator of all these harmful emotions and cognitions may be someone else who, for her/his own reasons, needs to put a subordinate down. Finding mentioned in wiki that such a power abuse disorder exists most likely is of great relief for victims of PADed individuals. Because of that alone, I think PAD is worth being mentioned in wiki. I could present you with a lot of anecdotal evidence from my psychotherapy practice, I checked my conclusions with other health professionals in the field, including psychiatrists prescribing aripiprazole in cases of 'burnout'. I know that the authors of the cited review/commentary explicitly refrained from discussing even historic persons who may have been power abuse disordered, let alone living persons.

Considering the pace of advancement in the scientific field (grant application, getting money to do the research (with success rates around 5-10%), getting ethics committee approval, doing the research, getting it published, amassing enough data and original articles to base ANOTHER review on takes time, I would estimate 1-3 years for the original research to come out and a further year or so for reviews to be published. I think that, especially considering the current political culture, wiki readers would profit from being alerted to 'power abuse disorder' NOW.

4)With respect to WP:NOTABILITY, please note that CONSENSUS is very hard to achieve on mental disorder diagnoses (therefore I like the DESCRIPTIVE approach of the review/commentary cited on the page). For example, "burnout" still has not made it into the diagnostic compendium DSMV of the American Psychiatric Association. I know that one of the reasons for the publication of the review/commentary was that in the addiction field, there already is a counterproductive separation of dependence on SUBSTANCES (eg, alcohol, cocaine, fentanyl) vs NON-drug stimuli (eg patholgical gambling). By taking the WHO's ICD10 criteria for substance dependence and applying them to 'power wielding', the authors wanted to draw attention to the fact that all addictive disorders share a common neurobiologic basis (to emphasize, ANY motivated behavior can become addictive) and help end an arbitrary and counterproductive separation.

5) Please let me also emphasize that the term 'power abuse disorder' only refers to the social interaction itself, ie presents a DESCRIPTION of behavior in a very well defined situation that is amenable to study at the clinical and basic science level. In that sense, I think the definition of PAD allows to study it better than subsuming PAD under 'narcissistic personality disorder' or other, more general-hypothesis-driven disease concepts. Therefore, making the concept 'power abuse disorder' available to the wide readership of wiki (which includes many scientists as I know) would be advantageous for the advancement of the study of this societally important maladaptive behavior. Stoopormundi (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) I just deleted a whole bunch of unreferenced content, 2) two labs don't make a medical condition, 3) people don't read encyclopedias for anecdotes, 4) should be addressed in the addiction article 5) Wikipedia isn't a place for promoting new concepts to scientists, that's what conferences and papers are for. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based entirely on one paper that is entitled "Making the case for..". If the case is eventually made, and others have written about it, perhaps it will then be time to have an article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claims in the article depend upon a single academic paper where the two authors from the field of experimental psychiatry propose that a disorder could be described, making use of some existing ICD-10 descriptions. The article used as a source is published as a comment piece in a journal on drug research (which has an Impact Factor of 1.442). Notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have found and entered a second secondary source on the changes in the dopaminergic system during changes in hierarchic position. This reference was published in 2002 and lists 2 new coauthors. So the total consensus tally is now 7. Since Pontificalibus has brought the impact factor of the underlying source into play, please be advised that the 2002 article - a report on and a discussion of the data presented at a scientific meeting - was published in TRENDS IN PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES (TiPS), a peer reviewed scientific journal containing mostly reviews. TiPS had an impact factor of 10.372 in 2002; the same journal now has an impact factor of 12.797: In my opinion an excellent journal with a high standard of quality aimed at showcasing topics of interest for the scientific community. Apparently, some have observed the phenomenon described on this wiki page for quite a while, ie at least from 2002 to now.Stoopormundi (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the source just added, these claims are not credible. I note the 2002 TRENDS in Pharmacological Sciences article requires a subscription to access. That journal article is a report from a conference on modelling addiction. While it was mentioned (on page 400) that a researcher was using functional MRI on monkeys, this section was barely more than 100 words long and made no reference to "Power abuse disorder". Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Drchriswilliams: Thank you for checking the 2002 reference. 1) RE your subscription argument: The scientific journal "Trends in Pharmacological Sciences" (TiPS), in 2002, required a subscription AS, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, ALL THE SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS DID AT THAT TIME. This was before 'open access'. I bet any medical school in your vicinity will carry TiPS in its library. 2) RE your argument "barely more than 100 words long": Length is NOT a criterion for quality in science. 3) RE your argument "no reference to power abuse disorder": In the article, readers can find a paragraph titled "The ecstasy of power: neuroimaging and behavioral research" that summarizes AND INTERPRETS the finding of the Nader lab (Morgan being the first author of the Nature Neuroscience paper reviewed in the article), findings that are also presented and discussed in the review/commentary in 2017. In the 2002 report, the seminal findings of the Morgan paper from the Nader group were also reviewed by showing the increase in D2 dopamine receptor density in the nucleus accumbens (fig1 of the 2002 review/meeting report). In the 2002 review/meeting report, the paragraph on the Nader group findings concluded with "Accordingly, cocaine served as a reinforcer in intravenous self-administration experiments only in subordinate monkeys but not in dominant monkeys. Being the boss apparently is ecstasy enough." That is one of the main arguments for 'power abuse disorder'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoopormundi (talk • contribs) 05:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC) The above response was by me, I forgot to sign. Please excuse this oversight.Stoopormundi (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The core problem is, that there are no WP:MEDRS sources about this proposed condition. Any other discussion is really pointless. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is incorrect; the content source violates WP:SYN, but there is no point making drama as this is going to be deleted. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for original research; this, based on one journal article arguing about the possibility of a chemical basis for abusive behavior, becomes essentially that. Carrite (talk) 14:28, 10 September 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) 19:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Sathe

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

Highly promotional article of someone who fails WP:SOLDIER - receiving a 3rd level award for gallantry isn't enough Gbawden (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. "Third highest Gallantry Award"; fails WP:Soldier and reads like a local trivial history piece.
Delete Bad PROMO. Sourcing not enough for GNG. Fails SOLDIER.Icewhiz (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatantly promotional attempt at writing a Wiki article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Soldier. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mid-ranking officer with a single third-level decoration. Clear fail of WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meineke Car Care Center

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

Fails criteria for establishing notability. References are derivative of company PR, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND -- HighKing 16:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 900-outlet franchise chain in the U.S. is going to be notable. References in the article include profile-type info at "Entrepreneur" (a magazine?) and Charlotte Business Journal and others. Quick searching yields lots of newspaper articles like this one announcing 15 Meineke car care centers being opened in Birmingham, Alabama and another about the Pocatello Idaho one setting some kind of record for new Meineke franchises. Article is to answer the reference question "What is a Meineke?" which readers of local newspapers may wonder; i think this is the Wikipedia article covering everything about Meineke. --do ncr am 18:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This hit from Google Scholar search, from a 2008 magazine of the Richmond Federal Reserve branch?, provides substantial coverage, using Meineke's 2003 $68 million private equity investment deal as its leading example. --do ncr am 18:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with doncram here: Meineke is a large, well known franchise operation in the U.S. The article is not hopelessly promotional, sources are cited, and basic searches turn up lots of material coverage in major media like the New York Times[2] and Los Angeles Times[3] as well as auto industry sources. I suggest pluralizing the article title to match the corporate name. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely a notable chain. A cursory review of Google News suggests that there are a substantial number of articles in reliable sources discussing this franchise. bd2412 T 17:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-standing, well-known business consisting of franchises. Normal editing can fix the problems. Bearian (talk) 23:11, 9 September 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) 19:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flaudette May V. Datuin

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

Fails WP:PROF.

No evidence of significant impact in her academic area.
No highly prestigious academic award.
Not elected to a prestigious body.
No indication that her work has had a significant impact in higher education.
Not held a chairmanship.
Not a high-ranking administrative official.
No non-academic notability (WP:NAUTHOR).
Ctrl P isn't a "well-established academic journal". It's just a run of the mill publication.
See point 7.

She fails WP:GNG due to the lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.

The article is also written in a non-encyclopedic tone.

DrStrauss talk 14:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Datuin fails all notability guidelines for academics. Beyond this, the article is a horrible case of coatracking. It is really about the journal she is connected with. That journal might be notable, but that would be a different article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete analysis by nom shows she definitely fails WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of 3 is far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Falls way short of WP:PROF and I can't find anything else that would suggest notability. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am sympathetic, but her art hasn't even been shown at the Metropolitan Museum of Manila nor internationally. Her only cited show is in a government tourist trap. Associate professors generally do not pass the PROF test. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adyen

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

Fails GNG, references are company annoucements or partner announcements or rely on extensive quotations and/or material facts/data/information from PRIMARY sources, references fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing 17:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Kharpal, Arjun (2017-04-12). "Adyen, the $2.3 billion firm that processes payments for Uber and Netflix, saw 2016 revenues surge 99%". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2017-08-28. Retrieved 2017-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Adyen, the start-up that processes payments for the likes of Netflix, Uber and Facebook, saw a 99 percent surge in revenues in 2016, the company announced on Wednesday.
  The Dutch firm, which is valued at $2.3 billion, posted revenues of $727 million last year, up from $365 million in 2015. Adyen also recently announced that it processed $90 billion worth of transactions in 2016, an 80 percent year-on-year rise.
2. Bertoni, Steve (2016-01-20). "Meet Adyen: The Little-Known Unicorn Collecting Cash For Netflix, Uber, Spotify and Facebook". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-08-28. Retrieved 2017-08-28.
  The article is by a Forbes staff writer. Here is the writer's biography:
  I cover the Forbes Under 30 franchise, technology, entrepreneurs, billionaires and VC's. When I get the chance I write about food and booze too. Previously I edited Forbes's front-of-the-book section "Leaderboard," and was a proud member of the Forbes 400 Wealth Team. Before that I worked on Wall Street. Feel free to follow me on Twitter: stevenbertoni and subscribe to me on Facebook.
  The article notes:
  That complexity is Pieter Van der Does' margin. The CEO of Adyen runs one of the fastest-growing firms in the $1.6 trillion e-commerce industry. Not many people have heard about Adyen, but it has carved out a powerful place by laying down smooth payment rails all over the world for the biggest names in tech: Facebook FB -0.85%, Netflix, Spotify, Airbnb, Uber. Van der Does started the privately held Dutch company in 2006 with fellow payments vet Arnout Schuijff, spotting the need well in advance. "We are building the most horrible thing to compete with," he says.
  Adyen can handle 250 payment methods and 187 currencies, more than some of the big incumbents such as Chase Paymentech, WorldPay and GlobalCollect. Competitor Stripe, a fast grower in mobile, is in only 23 countries and 139 currencies. Breadth matters in global commerce. Americans may be addicted to credit cards, but Asians like to pay with their phone bill. Germans and the Dutch use bank debit cards. In underbanked regions like the Philippines and Brazil people exchange cash for bar-coded cards to make purchases online. "Adyen isn't burdened by legacy infrastructure," says Aaron Goldman, a partner at venture firm General Atlantic, which led a $250 million investment in Adyen in 2014. "It's a straight tube--like the autobahn."
  Adyen doubled its transaction volume last year to $50 billion, while net revenue grew a "mere" 89% to $350 million, due to conversion from a weak euro. While Adyen's fees fall with volume, the company grosses less than 1% of every dollar processed, far below the 2% to 3% that Square, PayPal and Stripe make. This is why Adyen has lower revenue than Stripe does (an estimated $450 million last year) on twice the payment volume. It's not a knock against Adyen: The company made a profit of $45 million in 2015 and has been in the black for five years straight--a rare thing among unicorns. The companies are in different segments of the market. Adyen caters to big, international operations while Stripe targets the startup app developer community, making up for lower volume by charging a slightly higher margin.
3. Del Rey, Jason (2016-01-14). "Adyen Is the $2 Billion Payments Startup You've Never Heard Of (Unless You're a Payments Nerd)". Recode. Archived from the original on 2017-08-28. Retrieved 2017-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Adyen is not a household name in U.S. business circles, even with a $2 billion-plus valuation. It hopes that opening up about its financial performance will help change that.
  The privately held payments company, which has its headquarters in Amsterdam, Netherlands, announced Thursday that its revenue doubled to $350 million last year, as the company crossed $50 billion in the amount of payments it processed. The company says it has been profitable on an Ebitda basis — a measure of a company’s operating profit — since 2011.
  ...
  Adyen is 10 years old and was built to help online businesses in Europe accept a variety of payment methods, including credit cards. A few years ago, it started pitching European retailers and fashion brands on using its software to accept payments in their brick-and-mortar stores, too. Now, today’s financial disclosures come as the company begins courting U.S. retailers to also use its in-store payment tools.
  ...
  These attributes have led to some big-name investors buying in. General Atlantic led a $250 million investment in Adyen at a $1.5 billion valuation a little over a year ago. And last year, Iconiq Capital, which manages the fortunes of wealthy tech titans including Mark Zuckerberg, invested an undisclosed sum that valued Adyen at $2.3 billion.
4. Crum, Rex (2017-06-08). "Biz Break: Will PayPal's growth plans include buying Netherlands' Adyen?". Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2017-08-28. Retrieved 2017-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  But, if there is a company that could fill some of PayPal’s needs, a possibility could lie over in the Netherlands, in the form of a payments processor called Adyen. Condra said that Adyen might be an attractive acquisition option for PayPal.
  Adyen provides payment processing technology and services for a lot of big-name international companies. Its customers include the likes of Facebook, Netflix, Uber and Spotify. “This is a segment PayPal does not serve and it would be a good complement to PayPal’s small-to-mid size online business focus,” [Credit Suisse analyst Paul] Condra said.
  Condra made it clear that he has no inside scoop about whether PayPal has even had any kinds of acquisition talks with Adyen. “To my knowledge,” Condra said. “(PayPal) management has made no indication they are looking specifically at this company. We just view it as an attractive property.”
5. Primack, Dan (2014-12-16). "Payment unicorn: Adyen raises $250 million at huge valuation". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2017-08-28. Retrieved 2017-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Adyen was formed in 2006 by Pieter van der Does and Arnout Schuijff, a pair of Dutch entrepreneurs who previously worked together on Bibit, which later was rolled into WorldPay. The idea was to create a fully-integrated payment technology solution that would work regardless of merchant type, payment type or geography. Not just putting a slick user interface on someone else's infrastructure, or featuring separate systems for online, mobile and physical payments.
  Today, Adyen says that it has over 3,500 merchants using its platform, which supports more than 250 payment types in 187 countries. Among its customers are Airbnb, Burberry, Facebook, Spotify, Vodafone and Yelp. It also was an early adopter of Apple Pay, and works with such payment solutions as Alipay in China, Boletos in Brazil and Qiwi in Russia.
6. Cookson, Robert (2015-09-30). "Payments company Adyen valued at $2.3bn after Iconiq injection". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2017-08-28. Retrieved 2017-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Founded in 2006, Adyen handles payments for many international ecommerce companies and has been extending its technology to allow merchants to take payments in physical stores too, via internet-connected devices.
  ...
  The company allows merchants to plug in to a single global platform that accepts multiple currencies and more than 250 different payment methods, including credit cards, Apple Pay and Alipay.
  This enables Adyen to capture data about shoppers as they buy across multiple devices and in-store, allowing the company to provide fraud detection, loyalty schemes and even services such as accepting returned items in a different country to where they were purchased.
  The company’s rivals include Chase Paymentech and Worldpay, which is preparing for an initial public offering in London next month at a valuation of as much as £3.5bn.
7. Kahn, Jeremy (2016-09-01). "The Company Quietly Handling Your Online Purchases". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2017-08-28. Retrieved 2017-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  This is the headquarters of Adyen, a payment processor whose 4,500 customers include many of the world’s best-known tech companies and largest retailers. Though virtually unknown to consumers, the 10-year-old company has quietly grown to handle $50 billion in transactions a year, twice the estimated volume of rival Stripe and 40 percent more than Square . And unlike those companies, Adyen turned a profit last year (€40 million, or $45 million).
  The company works with 150 currencies and 250 forms of payment, more than larger processors, including Worldpay and Chase Paymentech. Businesses like those and First Data dominate the global market, each handling billions of transactions a year. Adyen is tiny by comparison but has a big advantage: It handles every step of a credit card payment, from the checkout counter or website taking your order to the bank authorizing the payment. Most processors have to use one or more intermediaries to handle fraud detection, request approval for payments from card issuers, or transfer funds to merchants. Adyen’s greater control has helped reduce failed payments to its clients, says co-founder and Chief Executive Officer Pieter van der Does.
8. Davidson, Lauren (2016-01-14). "Payments start-up Adyen doubles transaction value to break through $50bn. One of Europe's most valuable start-ups signed new merchants including Easyjet, Netflix and Burton". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2017-08-28. Retrieved 2017-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Online payments processor Adyen doubled its transaction volume to $50bn (£34.8bn) in 2015, the year it signed a trove of high-profile clients including Easyjet, Netflix and Burton.
  The Dutch company, one of the highest valued start-ups in Europe, generated revenues of $350m, more than twice as much as in 2014, making $43.6m of profit.
  ...
  Adyen, whose clients include Uber, Facebook and Spotify, has been profitable since 2011 and its revenues are on track to break through $500m in 2016.
  The Amsterdam-based business was recently valued at $2.3bn – making it the sixth most valuable European start-up – following funding from Iconiq, the investment vehicle of some of Silicon Valley's most prominent executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and Reid Hoffman.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Adyen to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Cunard this type of post is becoming a problem for two reasons. The first is that the format and length of the post is totally unnecessary. You can post links without extracting quotations which significantly increases the length of the post. The second is you can increase the quality of the links you suggest by reading WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and *not* posting links to obvious company announcements, press releases, interviews, etc. Of the links you've posted above, the CNBC article is an interview and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The Forbes reference is the same - an interview with the CEO. The recode article relies on a company announcement and quotations from the CEO. The mercury news article is a mention-in-passing and is not "substantial" coverage as the article is mainly about PayPal. The fortune reference is based on a Press Release and quotations from the company. The Financial Times article is based on a Press Release and quotations from the CEO. The Bloomberg article is based on an interview that took place in their HQ with the CEO. Finally, Telegraph article is based on an interview with the CEO. In other words, they *all* fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing 12:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing's excellent analysis of the sourcing, which I concur in, but I'll add additional reasons: the interview based sources are primary sourcing, which does not count towards the requirements of WP:N, also, this is actually one of the worst non-G11 eligible spam articles I've seen. It might as well be a case statement they provide to investors or a brochure for clients. It is excluded by WP:NOTSPAM from inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:DEL4, which means that even if it did meet the general notability guideline, it would not pass WP:N. In this case, it both fails the GNG and is spam. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG and NCORP. When I read that it is in the Forbes Cloud 100, I was doubtful. Yet another company that made it somewhere down some lists. Well -- NO. It is number 5 on Forbes Cloud 100! We have articles on #1 through #26 (except a biography on the founder of #19; #27 we have taken out a few times; a few have warnings that the articles read as ads). It would be really silly to take out the #5. With so many good sources and the company/platform as significant as it is, there is no way this article is going to be deleted. gidonb (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW #27 is Veeam, no activity on WP since 2013 and an excellent subject for an article. I created a redirect for the #19. We do have #28 through #30 and that's enough checking for today. I'll do one more. We do have the #100, Canva! gidonb (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, I reviewed the coverage of the Forbes Cloud 100 that you provided: I didn't find anything substantial in that article (it was a directory listing followed by a quote from a company executive.) I am open to switching my !vote if you could show the sourcing that you say exists. Cunard's above has already been demonstrated to not meet our guidelines in my book, but if other sourcing exists and the article can be cleaned up to comply with NOTSPAM before the end of the AfD, I'd switch my !vote. Otherwise its just a corporate brochure at this point, and we don't tend to keep those. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, above sources are just the tip of the iceberg. This is a silly nomination and a waste of time for the community. gidonb (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gidonb could you provide the other sourcing? I searched and couldn't find any that weren't near exact duplicates of the sourcing above, which HighKing has accurately analyzed. This is a close call for me because it does seem to have made a significant impact in their field, the question is whether they have been noticed by enough people independently of their promotional efforts. If that could be demonstrated and the article cleaned up to be neutral, I'd be open to switching. Also, if someone does find more sources (and Cunard, I welcome more from you as well), please don't paste them into the AfD: its distracting and makes it more difficult to actually read the discussion and more difficult to find the links to the full sources because they get lost in the text. Just standard links will work. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Veeam exists as Veeam Software. I'm going to create a redirect. gidonb (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I also moved the whole thing further to consensus on the talk page. I'm not going to answer Tony's inquiry at length. These were the outcomes of my invested independent research. Judging by his statements he will be hard to please and I do have more things to do. I'm a big believer in writing and think no good will come out of nominating leading companies for deletion. No good for Wikipedia that is. gidonb (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Passes GNG Elokammanoharam (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Keep : Passes GNG JillyJab (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jillyjab, which suggests one of the accounts above is a likely sock to a random sock farm, and the other is possilikely to people who claim to be employees of the company. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A "unicorn startup" could (possibly) be notable, but the promotional intent here is quite clear. The copy is 100% advertorial and such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. In the present case, without article improvements in the course of this AfD, my vote is for deletion. No objection to recreation if a non-affiliated editor wants to take a stab at it. There's no hurry to get to such a state, however. The article is about a company engaged in merchant services (non consumer), so it's not likely that Wiki readers are dying to learn about this company. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, covered in reliable sources. And, outside view: as a processor of $90 billion in payments per year understanding this company is going to be important for understanding a lot of stuff, so it is useful to have an article on it. Antrocent (♫♬) 07:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I work for the company and have been making edits to the page, which I feel now meets GNG. I have removed most descriptions of Adyen's products and have edited the tone to be much more neutral. Using similar companies for reference... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripe_(company) Please let me know what further modifications I can make to keep the page. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessdujour2 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veem

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

Article appears to fail GNG. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as they rely on company announcements, quotations/interviews with company personnel, funding announcements, etc. Looks like a company with a PR department but no intellectually independent secondary sources available. -- HighKing 17:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources found by CNMall41 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Align Commerce in The Wall Street Journal, TechCrunch, and Ottawa Business Journal provide significant coverage of the subject. The articles are all written by established journalists and published in sources with a history of fact-checking. That these sources consider the information they publish to be credible and worthy of covering means that the information passes Wikipedia:Verifiability.
I reviewed the article and consider it to be generally neutrally written. Any minor issues can be addressed through normal editing, not deletion, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Veem to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again, you fail to follow through with your examination of sources. It is *not* enough that the the source meets the criteria for reliable sources, but the reference/article itself must also meet the criteria for establishing notability. References that rely on quotations from company personnel and materials produced by the company or press releases fail the criteria as per WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Just like the references you list above - they may be reliable sources (in that they *reliably* reproduce quotations and press release information) but the articles are not "intellectually independent" and on examination, all of the pertinent information/data/facts are attributed to company sources. -- HighKing 11:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{U|Cunard}}, TeleChrunch has a few reliable product reviews, but the rest of its content is PRjunk. I would not support ruling it out completely as a RS for N, because some times it is reliable--one has to actually look at the particular article. But that it has editorial control in this case means only thathe editorial control is that of a publication intending and willing to publish PR. The Mirror has editorial control also, but we've ruled it out completely beause the editor publish and devote their skilled editorial efforts, towards publishing mostly garbage. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Align Commerce participants and closer: CNMall41 (talk · contribs), SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), Unscintillating (talk · contribs), Gargleafg (talk · contribs), and Randykitty (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again, please try to include everyone. You missed the nominator Light2021. -- HighKing 11:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- HighKing - Light2021 is indefinitely blocked for disruptive AfD nominations. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the argument here, which has come up quite a bit in other AfD discussions lately, is that the references are PR-driven. Quoting company representatives does not necessarily fail a reference test. In fact, quoting company representatives is good journalism as it takes their point of view into consideration for whatever story is written. What it comes down to for me is if the publication has editorial oversight - meaning they have a process to check the statements that are provided prior to publishing. There are in-depth sources that talk about the company, albeit more under the name "Align Commerce" than "Veem." I had to pull this and this from archive. What we need to look at closely is if the article is paid placement or there is connection with the publication such as a referral or affiliate fee for sending people to the company. I would lean towards many of the Bitcoin publications falling into this category, but the Wall Street Journal and Ottawa Business Journal would not. I think this is a good discussion to have at WP:RSN as it would really help to get a consensus for future AfD votes.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both those sources fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as they rely almost exclusively on quotations from company personnel and are not intellectually independent. Additionally, two different sources are required - even if one of those met the criteria for establishing notability, they are both from the same publisher. -- HighKing 17:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Analysis of Google news shows many new sources since the "Keep" result six months ago, yet the nomination has no mention of the previous AfD or what has changed since the previous AfD. Topic is already appearing in Google books. Nor is there mention of Veem Ltd. and Veem Corp Pty Ltd. There is also a German Veem. Meanwhile the nomination ignores the weakness shown at the last AfD within my arguments for WP:SUSTAINED. Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you - can you provide links for any two references that you believe meet the requirements for notability? If we get two references, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination and change my !vote. CNMall41 above provided two references but they are PRIMARY sources for any information and data and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing 12:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources presented at this AfD fail WP:CORPDEPTH, and are mostly WP:SPIP which are excluded from consideration when it comes to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I !voted "keep or incubate" at the previous AfD, but the option to incubate is a bridge that has been crossed with the "keep" result from the last AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. an apparent violation of the tou; such articles should never be kept--its the same aa articles written by sockpupetts. The assumptions is thatthey are a/written by sockpupetts, even if we have not yet found them, b/ are promotional and intended to be promotional, because that's what the companies pay for, and will use only unreliable references, because if there would good ones, some volunteer editor would have written an article. It's not a formal rule, but out view on these can reasonably depend considerably on the line of business--bitcoin companies, online gambling houses, press agencies, advertising firms, self-help gurus, life coaches, professional public speakers--all of these ruly only on hype and there is almsot always nothing substantial. On these topics by feeling is non-notable unless very clearly shown otherwise by unimpeachable sources. (On tthe other hand, I think its rational to look more favorably on companies that actually produce something. In this case, the reputable sources are entirely those talking about the industry in general, not the company, and all that is left is anouncmeents and within-industry journals catering to a particularly dubious industry. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete online payment processors are a dime a dozen. Nothing in this page inspires me to think "hey ghis company is notable". Legacypac (talk) 05:16, 7 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nispakshya National Weekly

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

No indication that the publication is notable is given in the article nor can be found in a [ https://www.google.com/search?q="Nispakshya National Weekly" search] for sources which mainly consist of free download sites. Only link is to its website and appears to fail the general notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 13:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent evidence of notability and also the website takes a long time to load in some browsers. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 14:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "It takes too long to open in some browsers" is not a metric to establish WP:N. In fact looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http://*.nepalnews.com.np there seems to be a strong indication that this was a bonafide national newspaper and as that notability would be a given (Just that we would need to find our GNG sources in Nepali). The link also shows that newsarticles used on Wiki seem to have stopped around 2008 which leads me to believe that this is a historic outfit, which would explain the current state of the website. I have asked a random Nepali editor to take a look. Agathoclea (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of multiple reliable sources needed to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - virtually no in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:44, 10 September 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) 19:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ErectaStep

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

non-notable corporation. i don't see it meeting WP:CORP. cited references are not independent of the subject while the rest are not RS. Saqib (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All sources are press releases, and passing mentions failing CORPDEPTH. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 14:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on one of the brands of a non-notable company, SixAxis LLC. The available sources are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL: routine product announcements, finalist in a non-notable industry award, participation in an industry show. I am not seeing the in-depth coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 4 September 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. postdlf (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most liked Facebook pages

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

Unmaintainable list. No evidence that the 7 pages provided are the 20 most liked pages. No objective source. It's just a list of 7 facebook pages with the unsupported assertion that they're the most liked. Cabayi (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I cant help but thinking this page will get outdated really fast. Are we sure its encyclopedic? It is an OK idea but somehow seems to much hassle for an encyclopedia, which is basically a static source of information, not a Google analytic clone. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial. Not even worth a mention in the main article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like WP:OR or just restating other web analytics works? Too trivial for an encylopaedia. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Obvious case of WP:NOTTRIVIA and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons stated above. This clearly does not belong on Wikipedia. Dunarc (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete - Per all above. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 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) 19:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James McGregor (organist)

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

Might fail notability guidelines. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Nothing in the sources suggest McGregor was more than an organist in a perish of a small and declining denomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC and absolutely fails WP:GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article constitutes notability and nothing could be found in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Article author has only edited this article and Grace Church, Newark where McGregor is the organist, and states here that he is the senior warden and webmaster of Grace Church – he also appears to be the church's historian if this book is anything to go by. The author therefore has a WP:COI and likely knows McGregor personally. Richard3120 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 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 Procedural close. Article was nominated twice. An active debate is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxwell The Cat (2nd nomination) (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell The Cat

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

I think this video is a fad, not a true viral. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:42, 2 September 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. (non-admin closure) Linguist^un Eins ^uno 03:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Middle Eastern newspaper publishing

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

There is no consensual definition of the Middle East. ARBN19 (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions if you don't mind - what were you thinking "Middle East" to mean when you created the article, and do you think there could be an alternative title that might might better cover your intended scope? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1. Category:Middle East and the main article Middle East provides enough reasonable definitions. This is not an argument for deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - that's an absurd rationale for AfD of a well-sourced page.XavierItzm (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep, as above. Geo Swan (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 September 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 LGBT rights in Albania. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT history in Albania

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

There's a large quantity of these articles, which are one liners and just plainly say 'homosexuality in XXXXX was decriminalised in xxxx'. I think this can be summarised in the respective LGBT rights articles of these countries. Some, like LGBT history in Greece, do have more content, but other than that, it seems like most of these are redundant. I'm nominating all for deletion, unless they have more content than this. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few sources found in seconds [4], [5], at worst redirect to LGBT rights in Albania. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LGBT rights in Albania. This is the same topic, while the article under discussion consists of 1 (one) sentence. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect created by an editor that takes great pride in creating thousands of very short pages that would never pass AfC over fewer quality pages. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LGBT rights in Albania, per K.e.coffman.Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 10 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RapidAPI (company)

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

So far, nothing to add on this Blatant misuse of Wikipedia. Only interest is to build an online reputation and Luring customers in the name of Wikipedia. Prodded by User:SwisterTwister, removed by the creator, who is a stale now. Don't delete it burn it. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It seems to me that the company is not notable, but is a story of the investor/promoters, which factor into the article more than the company or product. Rhadow (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close The proposal to burn is uncivil and incendiary. Unscintillating (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- $3.5M in funding is way too low for this startup to be presumed notable; sources lack WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to show it passes wP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:40, 10 September 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) 02:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panzermadels

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

I can only find one "reliable" source, and it's more of a joke article. Other than that all the sources are WP:PRIMARY. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which one did you feel was reliable? Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This one, which doesn't appear in the article, though I really don't think that it fulfills the "significant" criteria as it's really only a few sentences when you remove all the images._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, I had just wondered if you had been referring to a source in the article, because I didn't think any of them there would be a RS. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of sources that meet the WP:GNG. Zero critic reviews at Metacritic doesn't instill confidence either. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean, what do you mean by "unreliable". Let's take this one for instance. What, exactly, is false or wrong in that source. Does the entity not exist and they're just making it up? Is it not a tank dating simulator? Was it not developed by DEVGRU-P and released on March 9? Please be more specific about which statements in the source you challenge.

Sources are reliable or unreliable for specific uses. The Lancet is an excellent source for information on new medical procedures. For information on the development of Lacrosse in the 19th century it is not a good source. Similarly the sources in this article would not be good sources for information about quantum mechanics. For information about video games they are good sources, since that is their field of expertise.

And of course it's not true that a full review of a couple paragraphs is not significant. It is true that the text of the GNG is not very helpful here, with the examples being "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that 'In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice' is plainly a trivial mention of that band" [insufficient to support an article on that band], while the vast space between these two cases is left for our judgement. But I mean the rule is "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and it's stretching it quite a bit to equate a full two-paragraph review with a passing mention in part of a sentence. I think everyone would agree that the intent of the rule was not to deprecate full reviews, even short one.

There's also a quote from Brianna Wu, who is a significant person with a full article here. And I mean deleting this is going to put a big dent in our coverage of moe anthropomorphisms of military hardware, although we still have Kantai Collection. I don't see the win-win in that. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems you don't have a full understanding of what makes a source reliable or significant. A quote from Brianna Wu is not a significant reference, as it is only a single sentence on Twitter with no other context, and was not published in a secondary source. Thegg.net is certainly not a reliable source, as they reinterpreted an otherwise sarcastic quote as a feminist comment, then criticized her judgement and compared her to Anita Sarkeesian, showing they have no editorial standards or at least any common sense. TVTropes and VNDB and Kickstarter are either unreliable, or primary sources. And your final argument, is basically WP:ILIKEIT, and it's obvious why that can't be the sole criterion articles exist._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. This about covers all the ways I was going to point out how this "keep" rationale is invalid. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sergecross/Zxcvbnm. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - game has purportedly been out for a year and a half, but there's no media cover I can find in anything resembling mainstream press. The Egg is an opinion piece, and the other sites are user contributed. Fails WP:RS TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:37, 3 September 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) 19:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oon United F.C.

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

An amateur club which has not been covered in-depth by any reliable source. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH Paul_012 (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no reliable coverage article fails WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:08, 4 September 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) 19:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hays

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

Deletion requested by subject's representative via OTRS (Ticket#2017090110033012). Reasoning: article is having a negative effect on subject, subject is not notable, sources are insufficient to prove notability. See also WP:BBLP. As nominator, I'm acting on behalf of the OTRS request and have no personal opinion on whether the article should be kept or not. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Weak delete. The subject appears to want to distance herself from her past, which may be a reasonable desire but isn’t a reason for article deletion. However, she does have a valid argument for non-notability. The previous AfD nomination revealed barely enough to merit a keep, and while her IMDB page has extensive credits, significant third party coverage is fairly sparse. It really seems border-line, but I’m leaning closer to delete than keep owing to the the triviality of the coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are not enough, although old but doesn't meet the criteria. Should be deleted Chrisswill (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are trivial, old and irrelevant. Ive seen WAY better articles get deleted for notability ALONE. doesn't meet the notability criteria. Should be deleted Love4Colombia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Factual accuracy is questionable as very shady citations are given for the claims made. 18:46, 6 September 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careyjamesbalboa (talk • contribs)

Delete - Coverage in reliable sources is virtually non-existant except for an interview in Film Threat. Doesn't seem like enough material to make a real article, much less a balanced BLP. Kaldari (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per request. Hmlarson (talk) 03:37, 9 September 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. Regarding a possible merge with Hurricane Harvey, there is no consensus; it's likely too soon to tell whether a merge is appropriate. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Arkema plant explosion

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

Wikipedia is not news. There were -- thankfully -- no significant deaths or injuries from this incident. Granted, the explosions received a little more notice because of the lens currently focused on Hurricane Harvey but that is not nearly enough to ignore issues with WP:DIVERSE and WP:LASTING. Two alternatives to outright deletion come to mind: redirect this to the company article or briefly mention it under the damages related to the hurricane. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As nom, I support the merge target voters are conversing on here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hurricane Harvey#Effects in the United States#Texas. It certainly doesn't deserve a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per nom and per WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the sections on Arkema and Hurricane Harvey. Those sections are identical to the article and more upto date. I also question the notablity of the seperate article. Sawblade5 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 13:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hurricane Harvey. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy incubate and salt article for two weeks This problem is easily solved with a Criteria for Speedy Incubation template for "breaking news". This has been hitting most news cycles for days, and last night we were still waiting for new fires to break out. ~~Why merge something that hasn't happened, yet?~~ Unscintillating (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that the nominator has withdrawn, count me in the keep group. This is a profoundly interesting unique event that will have long-term concerns and notability and lots of news still to come with the lawsuits. Unscintillating (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating I'm sorry but are you observing the same AfD? I never withdrew my nomination. I am simply letting the community know I would not oppose a merger since there is an appropriate area to redirect this afterwards. There still is no basis for a standalone article or evidence of significant long-term consequences. Your WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't change that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is spontaneous combustion of organic peroxides in your backyard industrial park, due to economic engineering that justifies building in flood plains depending on the cost of rebuilding and the frequency of flooding. There is also an element of hubris in the failed planning for backup generators. That is plenty to keep the article for now, until we have more information. Harvey is only incidentally related, IMO. Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) I suggest we keep the article a little while longer while we wait to see what happens, but if it doesn't get more coverage, let's merge it. 2601:140:4:1570:329E:D250:D00F:6CDA (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is continuing to get extensive attention from the media, and it is already clear that this event has long-term and complex ramifications. [6][7]--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The very source you use to attempt to demonstrate long-term significance states "there are no concentrations of concern for toxic materials reported at this time". No major environmental repercussions, no casualties, and WP:ROUTINE news reports. Not very convincing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you listen to the news? These fires create smoke, which is an irritant. How can you say with a straight face that international coverage of spontaneous combustion of organic peroxides is routine? Unscintillating (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hurricane_Harvey#Effects_in_the_United_States; not independently notable (just yet). No need for a merge, as the target article already covers the subject in more detail than what's in the article under discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Hurricane_Harvey#Effects_in_the_United_States; I'm with K.e. here, there is nothing really here in this article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not defined by what is in an article. Unscintillating (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Google News: Washington Post 3 days ago, "But with that budget still only a proposal, the board announced an investigation of the fires at the Arkema chemical plant in Crosby, Texas ..." Unscintillating (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep the article, or merge to ~~2017 Arkema plant explosion~~. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677 did you perhaps mean to write Hurricane Harvey or Arkema?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Hurricane Harvey. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've updated the article to the point that there is no significant relation between the Hurricane Harvey material and the Crosby plant explosions material. There are now seven references in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, now it just looks slapdash. The article is about the Crosby explosions and the flooding from Hurricane Harvey is cited as a cause so what did you exactly accomplish -- what it is ain't exactly clear. The lobbying campaign may be useful information for Arkema though.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I failed to accomplish getting you on track with speaking without basing arguments on implied fallacies, such as that one of the arguments for deletion is "article is slapdash". Since you don't show that you keep up with U.S. news, the first explosion occurred on 31 August with Harvey's initial landfall on 25 August. As the second (technically the third) landfall occurred on 30 August, 80 miles to the East, "the Houston area was just beginning to recover from the biggest rainstorm in the recorded history of the continental United States." WA Post. So the hurricane in Houston was gone when the first explosion occurred. Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating it wasn't a rationale for deletion; I just stated the article is now disorganized and hastily put together.

Maybe you should read this article by The New York Times, specifically this quote: "The fires, a result of flooding in the wake of Hurricane Harvey that caused chemicals to become unstable, had little health impact beyond the 21 emergency workers who were treated for smoke exposure. The returning homeowners now face more common problems that follow a flood: crumbling plasterboard, ruined furnishings and, above all, mold". The floods were caused by Harvey, hence Harvey triggered the explosion. Harvey was long gone but the devastation it caused does not magically disappear with the hurricane. It also reasserts my original opening statement which pointed out there were little health impacts.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there is an unusual argument for deletion, WP:delete when an evacuation of a 1.5 mi radius area of the nearby community has had little health impacts, and only 21 first responders, for smoke inhalation and exposure to flood water, go to the hospital. Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the explanation that WP:article is slapdash is not an argument for deletion, then what was it? Was it an argument to merge? Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, what an utterly pointless comment on your part. If you are not going to bother responding civilly, do not reply. Simple. Unfortunately, for you WP:UNCIVIL is an actual policy, not a daft redlink aimed at making some sort of WP:POINT.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the space of four sentences your comments argue both that my comments are "pointless" and that they "mak[e] some sort of WP:POINT". Please review that I came here as a supporter of your WP:NOTNEWS argument. You then said that you "support"ed merge, but you objected when I understood that to mean you had withdrawn. Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The info on the Hurricane's page has more info that this page. If it gets more notable, I would vote for Weak Reverse Merge instead. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is a lot more material here than could fit into the hurricane article. Good work with the improvements, User:Unscintillating. Antrocent (♫♬) 03:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to WP:HEYMANN upgrades by User:Unscintillating.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note long, detailed story in yesterday's New York Times detailing years of management of this plant ignoring warnings about safety by it's own investigators and by government regulators; govt. regulators atarted an investigation of safety at this plant just last month.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the entire text of the four relevant sentences from Hurricane Harvey, using oldid=799316853:

On August 30, the CEO of Arkema warned one of its chemical plants in Crosby, Texas, could explode or be subject to intense fire due to the loss of "critical refrigeration" of materials.^[1] All workers at the facility and residents within 1.5 mi (2.4 km) were evacuated. Eight of the plant's nine refrigeration units failed without power, enabling the stored chemicals to decompose and become combustible. Two explosions occurred around 2:00 a.m. on August 31; 21 emergency personnel were briefly hospitalized.^[2]

References

^ "Harvey aftershock: Chemical plant near Houston could explode, CEO says". Fox News Channel. August 30, 2017. Retrieved August 31, 2017.
^ "Harvey Live Updates: In Crosby, Texas, Blasts at a Chemical Plant and More Are Feared". The New York Times. August 31, 2017. Retrieved August 31, 2017.

Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Close Nomination per WP:SNOW against deletion and the nominator's withdraw request above. The consensus is not clear as of yet for merge but there is no deletion rationales in this nomination. Sawblade5 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 01:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never withdrew and, even if I did, editors are discussing the possibility of merging and redirecting the article which, contrary to your belief, has support. An admin cannot simply interfere with that process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, withdraw. When you said that you "support"ed merger, that meant that you no longer felt that your argument for deletion had sufficient merit. With my dropping my support for your nomination, your view stands alone against 13 editors.
A merge forum involves the opinions of the editors at both the source article and the target article, and does not need deletion specialists, since there is nothing to delete. The forum here is called "Articles for Deletion". Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating let me get this straight: because editors had a good idea for a merge, which I support, I should withdraw this discussion? Do you realize a consensus for merge can and regularly is reached at an AfD? My nomination still proves the subject is not notable for a standalone article but, per WP:PRESERVE, a suitable destination article can accept some of the content in a WP:SMERGE. Editors are discussing, views on policy are being weighted; stop trying to impede that with calls to close them out. I made perfectly clear I will not close the discussion so please drop the stick and do not ask me again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY: Yesterday's international headline: "Houston flood: Texas emergency crews sue Arkema chemical plant". This looks more notable with every day that passes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and in addition to the BBC there are strong articles from WA Post and The Atlantic. The article from The Atlantic is written by a staff writer who covers politics and policy.

Vann R. Newkirk II (September 7, 2017), "The Exploding Chemical Plant Outside Houston Faces Its First Lawsuit", The Atlantic, retrieved 2017-09-09, A new lawsuit filed in a Harris County district court not only directly contradicts those claims from Arkema, but paints a much more harrowing picture of the facility's meltdown following the flood. The suit alleges that a series of explosions on August 31 spread dangerous fumes to a perimeter 1.5 miles around the plant...and then...overwhelmed medical professionals responding to [police officer's] calls. The suit...also alleges that a series of negligent decisions by Arkema and operators at the plant led directly to those explosions. {{citation}}: |author= has generic name (help); External link in |author= (help)
Mufson, Steven; Dennis, Brady (September 7, 2017), "In scathing lawsuit, first responders describe vomiting, gasping at Texas chemical plant fire", Washington Post, retrieved 2017-09-09, Separately, the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday ordered Arkema, a French multinational company, to provide a detailed timeline of events and to respond within 10 days to questions about the handling of organic peroxides...and the measures taken in advance to guard against flooding and loss of electricity.
The suit accuses Arkema of negligence for failing to adequately prepare for an extreme flood, improperly storing chemicals at the plant, and not having a more reliable backup form of refrigeration.

Keep, industrial explosions that receive coverage in multiple third-party sources are usually notable. Seems to have quite a bit of independent coverage, not just passing mentions in articles about the hurricane. --Delirium (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. It's far too soon to even survey the damage. Bearian (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is WP:TOOSOON to evaluate the notability of a subject, an article shouldn't be created.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 10 September 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. When considering the votes at the earlier AfD, there is a clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XVideos

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

No credible indication the article meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Limited evidence that previous AfD covered the issue properly.A Guy into Books (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Kept at AfD as snow keep just 3 days ago. This nomination is rather silly. --Michig (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Afd three days ago and it does not cover WP:CORPDEPTH at all. Infact it was only Snowed because it had been improved from when it was nominated. But i still see no indication it meets notability criteria. Despite the arguments that "it has a lot of views" or that "searching for sources in not work friendly", the existing sources are based on other issues, where Xvideos gets merely trivial mentions. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I'm trying to assume good faith but it feels insane to me that the nominator is just ignoring the consensus that was established. Per WP:AFDHOWTO: "After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." This should have been brought up at the article's talk page for discussion instead of a crazy renomination like this. Nomader (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD does not form a consensus because it was Snowed, therefore no consensus can be construed from the discussion. The discussion didn't even cover CORPDEPTH anyway. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- [8], [9], [10] I've pulled three sources at random here that we're discussed in the previous AFD. How do any of these fail WP:CORPDEPTH? Nomader (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

only the first meets CORPDEPTH criteria, 2 & 3 are both trivial mentions, 2 focuses on the internet traffic of all porn sites, 3 focuses on all porn being blocked, both mention xvideos in passing but do not give any depth of coverage. thus you still need two more proper references. If this wasnt about everyone's favorite incognito bookmark it would be no question deleted. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of these sources-- the second article goes into depth about how XVideos is the largest porn website, and the third I listed as it's similar to dozens and dozens of articles that talk about XVideos being blocked in reliable sources. Although I understand where you're coming from and personally, this isn't what I came to Wikipedia to write about, but articles about XVideos being the largest porn site in the entire internet would seem to allow the article to easily pass CORPDEPTH. Nomader (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking to my (probably biased, but who isnt?) argument and disagreeing again. the second article goes into depth about how XVideos is the largest porn website perhaps, but it is still only mentioning the site briefly, the main topic of the article is a report which does not focus on xvideos. I could go on about the number of sites blocked by that block and similar, and the fact that again, it is only providing a mention of xvideos, no in depth coverage of the business. For context, over at another Afd I am arguing the other way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Biscoe‎ there are several articles giving similar depth being totally dismissed. so I am not being out of place on insisting on something better than what you have at the moment. Obviously i understand that it has alot of traffic, but lot of visitors does not indicate notability. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fair points-- and I apologize for calling you 'biased' in the edit summary, that was pretty terrible language. Let me make a full review of sources this evening and see what I can come up with on my end over here. Nomader (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and a ping to @Aguyintobooks:-- real life is becoming pressing again and I'm not going to be on Wikipedia as much. I've looked at a bunch of sources before, but I may not have time to pull them for this before this AfD comes to a close. Apologies in advance if I can't. Nomader (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is web content, not a company or organization. The relevant guideline is WP:NWEB, especially WP:WEBCRIT. WP:CORPDEPTH is part of WP:CORP, which applies to organizations and is meant to hold organizations to a higher standard than GNG. The sourcing of this article is still not the best at first glance, but WP:CORPDEPTH is a misapplication of guidelines. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 September 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) 19:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell The Cat

AfDs for this article:

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

Аbsence or inadequacy of coverage in reliable independent sources Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with, Power~enwiki. --RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Send it packing somewhere else. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. While I don't agree that this page is useful, or can be made useful, it is clear that I am alone in this view. Moreover, policy does seem to support keeping the article, even if it is not necessarily useful or likely to become useful (and other articles have been pointed out that support this precedent). (non-admin closure) — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 04:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of naturalized American citizens

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

I don't think we need this. The category, "People with acquired American citizenship" fits this role, but any such list is going to be wildly incomplete no matter what we do, or else so long that it would be impossible to have as a standalone article. As it stands, this article is merely a list of naturalized American citizens that wikipedia has articles on, and that have been added to the aforementioned category. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 07:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the general consensus is that lists such as this one are kept to link the articles Wikipedia does have. It is not expected to be complete, or ever include non-notable people. If it becomes too long it can be subdivided anyway. the fact that it matches a category is not entirely relevant, since this list can be improved to include more information than the category, and most lists have corresponding categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs) 08:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see anything violating WP:LISTPEOPLE. It'll have to be split up into more manageable sublists at some point, but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, what use is this article to anybody (in its current or any other likely future form)? And who is going to bother expanding it beyond whatever articles happen to get added to that category? Why would they bother? This article might not violate any policy by existing, but it is still useless and almost absolutely certain to remain useless. If this article was truly a list of all of the applicable notable people on wikipedia, it would likely have several thousand names, instead it is merely the result of an underused category being used to populate a wildly unrepresentative list that no one will care enough about to maintain or expand. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 11:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, well it's information for starts, and considering United States nationality law has a lengthy article about the topic, it seems like the list of people who have become naturalized is notable. Be the change you want to see; instead of complaining how editors would theoretically not want to improve the article, how about you try to help out.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any easy or practical way of doing so. That is the primary issue with this article. You are the one who created this article. Do you have any practical way of expanding it beyond the contents of the aforementioned category (which only contains a tiny percentage of the applicable notable people)? — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 00:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As user:Aguyintobooks has noted out below, one of the characteristics of Wikipedia is that is it will never be complete. As to how we plan on improving this list, well it'll take a lot of effort, but a little bit at a time.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Comment. It is not relevant whether it has any obvious use or will ever be complete. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of copyright case law). what matters is that it provides some information, which would be lost if it were deleted. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone's made a start on adding more info than a category can provide, i.e. nationality, profession, etc. If it gets unwieldy, it can be split up into sublists. (Also makes a nice counterpoint to my List of denaturalized former citizens of the United States.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 4 September 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) 19:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pumpkin Adventure

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

This article was brought up in WP:VG by Zxcvbnm. A PROD was previously placed on this article, but has since been contested. The concern raised was that while the article does have sources, it does not have enough to satisfy the requirements of general notability. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could only really find one, possibly two reliable significant secondary sources. Third review is from a community blog writer and everything else are short news articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search: sole review from Nintendo Life (specialty source) and some news coverage in Siliconera (also speciality). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 17:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:05, 10 September 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) 19:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mink Peeters

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Sandbox - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - As it stands, he certainly fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Worth keeping an eye on in case he does play a match or two for Venlo. LampGenie01 (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The article says he plays for VVV-Venlo in the Eredivisie (which is listed as a fully professional league in WP:FPL) since 2017. – Editør (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Whilst he may be part of a club in a Fully Professional league, he has to actually play to meet NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Alex Shih ^Talk 11:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lekha Prajapati

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

Hi. The subject is not notable. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 3 September 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. There is consensus that neither he nor the event are notable at this point, although the arrest's notability might increase with time. So Why 06:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Wertkin

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

American lawyer. The event he was involved in was notable, he is not. WP:1E. Most of the article is just describing his ordinary life as a lawyer. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to new article titled Arrest of Jeffrey Wertkin with a subsection on him - The arrest is notable, he isn't. Therefore, I propose creation of a new article solely dedicated to his arrest, with a subsection on Wertkin himself. Jdcomix (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New article has been created - Thank you Jdcomix for the suggestion of a new article about the arrest, which we all agree is notable. It has been created here Arrest of Jeffrey Wertkin. Although I think Wertkin is still a notable person and we should keep his BLP, if consensus is to just have the Arrest of Jeffrey Wertkin page at this time, then I'll agree to delete it. He has not yet been arraigned and the implications of his actions could have far reaching consequences on many important Federal cases in the U.S., meaning he may become very notable in the near future as things come to light in his trial. If that is the case, I would like to revisit him having a BLP, and I reserve the right to recreate it if he becomes more notable independent of this arrest. Sound good? --Radom event gen (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete this per nomination. I have also nominated Arrest of Jeffrey Wertkin for speedy deletion per WP:A10 which it is, as long as this is still running. And an outcome of this, to rename it and try to refocus it, doesn't change the issues raised in the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The patrolling admin redirected the "arrest" article here per this]. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original concerns about this article were resolved by creating Arrest of Jeffrey Wertkin. If Jeffery Wertkin is not notable, it should be deleted so that Arrest of Jeffery Wertkin can be reinstated as soon as possible. It is an evolving notable event as Wertkin is set to be arraigned soon, and new information should be added as the situation develops. Radom event gen (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the duplicate article you created violates BLP any less than this does. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS btw. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both this and the content fork/redirect/whatever it is about his arrest. If not for the arrest, Wertkin would clearly not be notable. And the part about the arrest fails WP:PERP for two reasons: first, because it only uses from-the-event news sources, rather than showing that there's any ongoing and long-term significance to the story. And second, it only says that he has been charged, but not that he has been convicted, and unless/until he has, we can't treat him as having committed a crime let alone being notable for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:1E. Take out that coverage, and no notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Lynne Williams

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable sources that are independent of the topic and significant are found. — Za wl 10:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems self-promotional with no indication of notability. Citations are to track listing websites from 2013 but no peer review or media coverage or any mentions in the intervening years in any independent publications. Darthamender (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not find the tone of the article self-promotional, and there's no indication that it violates NPOV. Therefore, if not for the Notability criteria, it should stay. I am personally against the notability criteria, but since it still stands as a policy, it needs to be applied unfortunately.Taraella (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not in tone, merely in content. No sources are provided to verify any claims that she has written poetry, or starred in a film or released an album. She may have done, of course, but without citations or reliable sources to confirm this one has to presume no-on but her knows about it. If someone else *does* know about it they should add a citation to let us know where they found it out and thereby help establish notability. Darthamender (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The musician clearly is notable, as evidenced by the amount of news from reliable publications that comes up when you search the name on Google News. The article's tone seems fine, and aside from an editor with the name of her record label – presumably an intern – recently updating the article with content about her latest album, there is doubtful any self-promotion here. Article would be better served with some citation needed tags, not deletion. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Homeostasis07: could you provide here links to some of those "news from reliable publications"? — Za wl 17:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PopMatters streaming her latest album; Blabbermouth.net article about her collaboration with Fates Warning; Dallas Observer article about her side-project; and those are just the reliable sources from the first page. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to Weak Delete The musician may be notable but the sources used to prove that are not strong ones. Possibly others might exist? I'm concerned because the music she is responsible for creating and the band that she is best known for Tresspassers William (awesome name BTW) is only marginally notable itself. Would be happy to change my vote if better citations are found to support Anna-Lynne Williams.Sgerbic (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what in your opinion are "strong" sources? The ones posted above are reliable sources. The whole issue of establishing "Anna-Lynne William"'s notability appears to be a lot trickier than I had first anticipated. It's her real name, but she has released all of her solo material under the name "Lotte Kestner". It may be more appropriate to rename this page Lotte Kestner, and just have the article point out that her real name is Anna-Lynne Williams, because it would be a hell of a lot easier to find sources for Lotte Kestner than Anna-Lynne Williams. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just about enough coverage to establish notability: [11], [12], [13], [14], plus some coverage in Les Inrocks and De:bug that shows up in Google Books but with the content hidden. --Michig (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 03:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TransUnion CIBIL

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

Article appears to fail WP:GNG. References fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing 17:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This article fails on many fronts; WP:GNG is not one of them. Understanding what a credit bureau is and does is crucial to a population. What started as a fanboy article written by professionals just needs to be cleaned up. Blowing it up would be the wrong thing to do. Rhadow (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 03:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any company that has credit records on 600 million consumers is notable. I rewrote the article , addressing all the tags but AfD. Have a look. Rhadow (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhadow, I've moved your response to below where I asked the question in order to preserve the timeline of the discussion. Hope you don't mind. -- HighKing 11:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as one of the four credit bureaus in India, this has obvious notability and meets our notability guidelines many times over. Softlavender (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Rhadow and Softlavender - can you please provide two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also, please provide specific reasoning to address the concerns I made in the nomination - that is, the references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. More specifically, the references are either mentions-in-passing, or normal business-as-usual announcements or they are PRIMARY sources, based on Press Releases. If you believe there are two references that meet the criteria for notability, please list them here for review. -- HighKing 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an article, HighKing -- [15]
  - Rhadow, thank you very much for providing the article. Unfortunately the article fails the criteria for establishing notability. The article is marked with the word "interview" above the main heading. Policy states that references must be secondary sources that provide novel interpretations of primary sources - if you follow footnote 3, it lists (depending on context) "interviews" as a primary source. Since the article does not provide a "novel interpretation" on the words spoken by the CIO, this reference fails the criteria for establishing notability. Other guidelines expand on this interpretation - for example WP:CORPDEPTH states that quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources fail the criteria for establishing notability and WP:ORGIND states other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. If you find other references, please post them here - if we can find two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, I'm happy to change my !vote. -- HighKing 11:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hello HighKing -- In my opinion, you are engaging in wikilawyering. The underlying question is this: Is an agency that maintains files on 600 million Indians and determines whether they are issued credit notable or not? I say yes. Any article that confirms the 600 million figure is worthy of inclusion. That can be a primary source, because this is a matter of fact, unlikely to be disputed (in the same way a biography can include place and date of birth without requiring a secondary source). If you dispute the 600 million figure, then put it on the table. You have some other objection to this article. What is it? Rhadow (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi Rhadow, I don't believe my interpretation of policy and guidelines is "wikilawyering". Hopefully another editor might clarify. I have no disputes with any of the facts quoted in the article, but you have to understand, how can we verify any of the facts if all of the facts originate from a PRIMARY source? That is the reason we have policies and guidelines on two separate things. The first is to find two independent secondary sources that publish intellectually independent articles (references) on the company in order to meet the criteria for notability. Once a topic is deemed to pass the test for notability, we can add in information and facts. While it is preferable to quote facts from secondary sources, it is also allowable (with some caveats to cover "extraordinary" or "disputed" claims) to quote from PRIMARY sources. So although you are asking if I dispute a quoted claim of 600million files on people in India, this is the second step in the process. The first step (and the primary job of editors at AfD) is to confirm (or not) that the topic meets the criteria for inclusion (notability) and this requires two sources as described above. If this topic is as noteworthy as you state, you would imagine that there exists two sources for this purpose. -- HighKing 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that this is usually known as "CIBIL", with TransUnion being the multinational corporation that owns it:

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

Reliable sources with significant coverage include this book, this academic paper and many others. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thank you. Both those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing 12:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw As nominator I withdraw my nomination of this article for deletion. The references provided by anon above satisfies the criteria for establishing notability. It would be great to see those references added to the article. -- HighKing 12:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I did the work that you were unable to do of finding sources, so how about a bit of collaborative editing from you to add them to the article? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 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 Withdrawn. I respect the feelings of my fellow wikipedians who feels the long history of the concept of vactrain should be kept. So I Happily withdraw my nomination Anoptimistix (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Anoptimistix (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vactrain

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

The page was created on 1 December 2005 by an IP contributor. Though I respect the hard work of IP user done in the process of creating this article, and has been almost 12 years, we've failed to see this train coming in reality in any place of this world. More than an encyclopedia article about a train this article reads like a fictious imaginary article Anoptimistix "Message Me" 03:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even if it is never made into a physical reality, the concept and its long history still deserve to be documented. At the moment it is useful for putting providing a background and historical context for the hyperloop. If the hyperloop never succeeds then maybe the vactrain article will provide inspiration for another implementation in the future. Isn't that a worthy goal of any article? Or should we just stop inventing here? Stepho talk 04:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Um, wow! It's been almost TWELVE (count them: 1... 2... 3... -- 12) years since the article's creation and just NOW someone is complaining that it should be lost? Uhhh... I think if nobody caught it for this long, it should stay simply as some sort of a "punishment" for your not having dealt with the (non-)"problem" over a decade ago!

Goodness! 75.162.197.67 (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Success ≠ notability. Dlthewave (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unrealised ideas can be notable enough for articles too--Darrelljon (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not WP:CRYSTAL, this is history (sort of). There are hundreds of similar articles in physics, and computer. Like Tachyons, a hypothetical particle that doesnt even exist; and another about an operating system. There was extensive work done on the OS, but it was never released, still it is notable enough in history, and in reality as well. I want to delete the article for Kareena Kapoor's son. He got an article just for being born. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:40, 4 September 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. After the rewrite and addition of sources, arguments based on the lack of sources became moot, further evidenced by the fact that for 10 days after the rewrite there were no further !votes for deletion. So Why 06:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Stitz

AfDs for this article:

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

Just because a person receives a tiny bit of media coverage does not make them "notable", nor does having big breasts make someone a suitable subject for a purportedly serious encyclopedia. Do we have articles for the world's biggest schlong? The world's ugliest face? The Guinness Book of World Records only published information about Norma once in 2000. We do not know if she is still the holder of this "record". And there are no other first-rate secondary sources that I can find. This article is a proper embarrassment. IAR and nuke. Hillbillyholiday (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- We do actually have an article about the man with (supposedly) the world's largest penis. Hut 8.5 10:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Maybe Merge to breasts; the subject appears to be Guinness World Records holder for the largest boobs in the world. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep coverage on TLC, ABC, Fox news and more. If she is still a record holder doesn't matter. That coverage it's for something sex related doesn't mean we don't cover it. Meets the GNG. Hobit (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full disclosure, our project page was asked to review this file, before it was relisted. I have evaluated the sources on the article and find they do not meet WP requirements for reliable sources, i.e. Pophangover does not appear to be a curated site, the ITV link is dead, and neither the the Daily Mail nor Linked in are reliable sources. That leaves the file with two sources, the Mirror and Huffington Post which are insufficient to provide adequate coverage to create a comprehensive encyclopedic entry. A search for additional RS yields only one additional source [16]. She fails GNG. Evaluating from the PORN BIO guidelines, she does not meet any of the criteria: no industry award; not a trendsetter nor and industry Hall of Fame inductee (the Guinness Book of Records is a broad-spectrum collector and not specific to the porn industry, nor is it an award); two times does not "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" make. As a BLP, evaluating the remaining sources leaves us with two Tabloid pieces and an article from the Huffington Post, which are insufficient to verify notability and not reliable sources. In fact, the BLP prohibits an article being based solely on tabloid pieces. Thus, there are no sources which meet our guidelines on any level except one weak article from HuffPost, which is insufficient sourcing and verification for an article. SusunW (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge/redirect to breasts: Northamerica1000's suggestion is probably a good idea when sourcing is insuffcient. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an archived itv link for those who want to see it. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: If there are no reliable sources, and at this point there are not, there is nothing to be merged. BLP requirements apply, whether she is the sole subject of an article or merely mentioned in another article. I have no interest in this topic and am not going to comment further, as my !vote was merely a commentary on policy as it relates to article. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on mobile and editing on a phone sucks. I'm seeing sources from Fox news, ABC and more. I'll supply links when I return on Tuesday if none else has. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If one digs through the search results, she has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. Despite the nomination statement, she is still in the Guinness Book (being a record-holder is not an annual event). I'm working on a phone, which is less than optimal, but I found news stories in The New York Post and News One (about her appearance on Strange Sex) and appearances on Double Divas and This Morning. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone improves the sourcing to the kind of standard we expect for BLPs. Right now the article has six citations: three to British tabloids which are unreliable and frankly useless, one to what looks like a celebrity gossip site, one to the subject's LinkedIn profile, one to an archive of a breakfast TV show and one to the Huffington Post (which looks like a TV listing). That isn't good enough. If better sources exist then they need to be added if we are to keep this article around. Hut 8.5 19:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOT TABLOID and NOT BELIEVEITORNOT. Notability does not arise from this sort of sourcing DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Hut 8.5. The sources provided are either not independent, or are trashy tabloid stuff that can't be considered reliable or appropriate for a BLP article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Deletion provided by the reasons of Hut 8.5 and DGG: sourcing is far below what we would expect for a BLP, and I can't actually believe I am seeing a suggestions to redirect/merge this article to breasts! That would be the biggest BLP violation of a redirect I have ever seen on this project: are we seriously going to say that it is okay to have the name of a living person to probably the most fetishized part of the human anatomy, even if she has promoted herself for having a large pair of them? No. That is the exact opposite of what the BLP policy was meant to do: prevent harm to people, and yes, having your name point to breasts on the 6th most popular website in the world is harming someone. We value actual human persons here more than the encyclopedia, and redirects for no reason other than to say we didn't delete an article are foolish in these cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note, while I appreciate S Marshall's alternative redirect below and consider it slightly better, the main force of my argument stands: redirecting a living person to a medical condition is still harmful to them and doesn't do the readers much service. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - She chooses to be called Norma Stitz, Tony.—S Marshall T/C 20:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is a fair point. I still don't think it overcomes the fact that the redirect would be of little use to the reader and redirects of this nature are still questionable in my mind from a BLP perspective. I also don't see a particular need to preserve the history in this case. There isn't a strong argument to redirect, but there are arguments to prefer deletion IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have no objection to deleting the history. To me, the redirect seems like a better idea than a redlink that invites a Wikipedia newbie to create an article in that space. We have more than enough unpleasant newbie-traps as it is.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Redirecting the name - even the stage name - of a living person to an article where she is not so much as mentioned is almost always a bad idea; RFD deletes such redirects all the time. In this particular case, it's a singularly terrible idea, only barely different from the straws that broke Neelix's back. WP:BLPDEL allows us to preemptively salt the title (and its redirect from the subject's real name) if you're truly worried about a newbie recreation. —Cryptic 14:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I'd have to add a "sufferers" section to the condition. Doesn't seem insurmountable. Because of the Guinness Book of Records thing, her name's a plausible search term.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to gigantomastia, is my advice; it's her medical condition that's the encyclopaedic topic here. I wouldn't want to see a biographical article based on the crappy tabloid sources we have.—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for lack of sufficient sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. No need for a merge / redirect, as a mention of a specific person would be undue in either breasts (general article) or gigantomastia (a medical condition). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now that I'm on a real computer, I can't find the sources I could find before. But here are a few that seem reliable.
- [[17]] looks like a reliable medical site that is a bit more coverage than "in passing".
- [NewsOne] looks like a reliable source.
- [[18]] Huffingtonpost isn't great, but this article looks fine.
- [[19]] is in French and I don't know about the reliability of the site, but it does talk quite a bit about the subject. Enough for a short article by itself.
- [[20]] documents the fact that she has been added to a wax museum along with a number of clearly notable people.

Plus, we have plenty of documentation that she was featured in an episode of "Strange Sex" and had coverage for that. Not the strongest case for a BLP I've ever seen, but well above the bar of WP:N IMO. Hobit (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SusunW. If there were any genuine notability here, it would be as a person prominent with a medical disorder. But this biography treats her a a pop culture celebrity, a field in which she is quite trivial. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE D1 in Google books shows book after book giving attention to this topic, and WP:BEFORE D1 for Google news on the first page shows major media coverage in both the U.S. and U.K. According to Huffington Post, the topic has made 250 films. Wikipedia is not censored. The evidence from http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-natural-breasts is that "All records listed on our website are current and up-to-date." Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've made a start on a near-total rewrite of the article under consideration, using the sources found by Hobit (thanks!) as well as a few of my own finds. I haven't really addressed early life, personal life, or anatomical details (as is done in Jonah Falcon), but there is material in the sources for those headings as well. We don't need Pophangover, archived copies of currently-unavailable ITV pages, British red-top tabloids, or the subject's LinkedIn (which I've moved to "External links") to write a Wikipedia article.

I've also done some investigation of the background of the sources being used. Medical Daily is published by IBT Media, which also publishes International Business Times and Newsweek. WZLX is owned by CBS Radio. VietNamNet Bridge is owned by Viettel. Adult Video News is the trade paper of the adult film industry, and is only cited to show that it did in fact review one of the subject's videos. News One is not the Urdu-language News One that the Wikipedia page of that title describes, but is a subsidiary of Interactive One, a large digital media company geared to the African-American and Hispanic communities. All in all, not The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Times of London, but far better than a collection of red tops.

This isn't my favorite topic to work on, but I would hate to see any article on any topic as well-known as this deleted. I suppose it's possible that a topic might be very well-known among the public (even over a long period of time, as this is) while failing to satisfy Wikipedia's specific criteria for notability, but I suspect that in practice that's a WP:SNOWBALL scenario. WP:BEFORE applies in spades to sourcing very well-known topics.

—Syrenka V (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was already !voting to keep, though I'll admit without much enthusiasm. This looks much better. A bit stubby, but very well sourced. Move me to "strong keep" I suppose. Hobit (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 02:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article as well as the sources seem to have been improved considerably since the nomination was started. At this point, the article seems to me to be a clear keep. As a consequence, I believe many of the delete rationales prior to the 29th of August may be disregarded. 79.67.85.74 (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources that exist are enough to establish notability. Arguments for deletion based on what the sourcing in the article was like, or that this isn't the sort of topic that they think should be in an encyclopedia are weak from a policy point of view. --Michig (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Huffpost piece in the second column should be mined for improvement of this bio, which does not even mention gigantomastia. The fact that a figure of the subject appears in a wax museum in Vietnam next to a long list of well-known celebrities should be a tip that this is not a run of the mill adult film star (with a claimed 250 softcore movies). Bottom line is that this is a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I wanted to !vote delete per nom's rationale. However, sourcing is available which shows that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsuo Sagawa

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

No indication of musical notability either in the article as written (with no independent sources) or on Google search. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 02:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- directory listing only on a subject that shows no indications of meeting WP:CREATIVE; lack of sufficient reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 8 September 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 deleted {{db-author}} Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Mysteries

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

Undeclared conflict of interest, non notable indie game page made by its creator that fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searched on web couldn't find sources providing coverage about this game, got this blog [21], which is managed by the authors of the game and some other user-generated source, doesn't passes WP:GNG criteria of having multiple secondary independent sources to have a stand-alone article Anoptimistix "Message Me" 03:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 3 September 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.

[1] "Harvey aftershock: Chemical plant near Houston could explode, CEO says". Fox News Channel. August 30, 2017. Retrieved August 31, 2017.

[2] "Harvey Live Updates: In Crosby, Texas, Blasts at a Chemical Plant and More Are Feared". The New York Times. August 31, 2017. Retrieved August 31, 2017.

[1]

[2]