Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 May	15 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hummus Day

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

This page is a promotion for the company Sobra. As a result it also ends up on "holidays" for May 13. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I have completed this nomination for User:Richardson mcphillips and added it to the 2016 May 14 log. Mz7 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2016 (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/2016 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up the transclusion. This should be fixed on the 14 May log now. Mz7 (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no credible reason why this should be an article, WP:NOTNEWS applies (no enduring notability). Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above comment. Here is the origin of the event. Considering that this event was started in 2012, I do not see any lasting effects or any enduring notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference linked by Lemongirl942 makes it clear that this is something made up by some guy. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:55, 20 May 2016 (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. Michig (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie, Mack, and Louie

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

No notability outside of the films they were in (MVP: Most Valuable Primate, MVP 2: Most Vertical Primate, and MXP: Most Xtreme Primate). Any information here could likely be merged into the relevant film articles. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

looking further:

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

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

Delete as the "characters" of Bernie, Mack, and Louie were performed by trained chimpanzee Jack (chimpanzee), so any list article of his projects (if there is one) should be about him. A mention within the respective film articles is just fine per Los Angeles Times. Entertanment Weekly, Variety, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge information into the relevant film. Very few human characters in films are worthy of their own article (most are just named in the filmography of the actor who played them); even less these chimpanzees. List also includes "Lucy" and "Baby Jack" so the article title isn't totally correct anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete solely as there's nothing to basically merge, nothing else convincing certainly for own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there do not seem to be acceptable reliable sources available for this topic to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2016 (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. joe decker ^talk 05:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Work4 Labs

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

I have found only expected mentions at Books, News and Highbeam, nothing else convincing aside from the apparent sources such as Forbes and TechCrunch which are acceptable, but that's basically. The article is still overall questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent sources. Just corporate PR. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. advertisement page. Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After sifting through the vast tracts of press releases and other promotional material, I've found next to nothing to help establish notability for the article subject. Honestly, this could almost be G11'd.. Chrisw80 (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masum Parvez Rubel

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

I happened to encounter this article and its current questionability, and I noticed the 1st AfD thus it's time for better attention again. My searches have only found expected mentions so far but nothing to suggest a larger amount of the needed coverage sources. Previously speedied, PRODed and nominated in 2013, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masum Pervez Rubel, before the 2015 one. Notifying the only still active 1st AfDers PRehse, Papaursa, Ibrahim Husain Meraj and Happiest persoN. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2015 AfD nomination can be found here. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masum Parvez Rubel (2nd nomination).Peter Rehse (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons given in the 2015 AfD. No indication any of the roles or movies were of any note.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a martial artist because he fails WP:MANOTE. Nothing shows he's notable as an actor or meets the GNG. Article consists almost completely of a list of films he reportedly has appeared in with no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No indication that these film roles were notable, and little verification that he has actually appeared in them. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage given and there's no evidence of meeting any SNG. My own search didn't turn up significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Lee Straughter

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

No evidence of notability. The references (some of which are repeated, making it look as though there are more of them than there actually are) are mostly a mixture of pages not mentioning him at all and pages merely listing his name in credits. Many are blogs, listings at Discogs, etc. The only significant coverage is a couple of reports on a legal claim he has made. A PROD was removed by an editor who gave an edit summary saying "I think he passes notability for writing songs for notable artists", but that is a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia's notability standards: notability is not inherited from notable people one works with, and we need evidence that he is notable in his own right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 13:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 13:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep when I deprodded I meant he passes WP:COMPOSER criteria 1 and 3 which trumps WP: Notinherited. The criteria are "1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." (songs he has composed include cowriting "I Waited" for Blue Magic and cowriting "Flyway "peformed by Coolio, "Spirit of Love" by Eddie Palmieri, "People Moving" for Azar Lawrence. Criteria 3..Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria." ( meaning by someone who passes WP:Musicbio) including has written songs for Phyllis Hyman, Horace Tapscott, Bobbi Humphrey Azar Lawrence Atlantic306 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply found nothing else better and the current article is especially not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator on all points. These are very weak references. Disagree with the argument to keep. The songs cited are not notable compositions on their own, and notability can't be inherited simply because they were recorded by notable artists. I will gladly change my opinion if it can be proved these compositions are notable. Their mere existence doesn't convey that. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weak refs are weak. Can find nothing better. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:01, 17 May 2016 (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 Prilep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Čair

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

It is just too short to be included in Wikipedia. I didn't CSD it for no context as you can identify the subject. Sports Devotee (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep on the basis that "Too short to be included" is not a valid reason. See WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prilep perhaps as Delete only if perhaps needed, certainly not currently acceptable anyway though. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional search: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Mz7 (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prilep – While "too short" is, indeed, not a valid reason to delete an article, I searched for a good amount of time using both "Ali Čair" and "Али Чаир" and couldn't find much potential for this to be expanded. The relevant notability guideline here is WP:GEOLAND, which already sets a pretty low bar for notability: you only need to show legal recognition of a populated place. However, neither the terms "Ali Čair" nor "Али Чаир" appear on the 2002 Macedonian census. The Macedonian-language Wikipedia has an article at mk:Али Чаир (археолошки локалитет), but it appears to deal with an archaeological site in the Prilep area and has only one reference to an offline map. A few of the sources I found through a general web search seem to deal with that rather than the suburb[2]. A machine translation of this source seems to call it a neighborhood, rather than a suburb, as does this source. A Google Books search for "Али Чаир" holds some promise: I found this book titled Prilep and Prilep throughout history which appears to have a section dedicated to Али Чаир. Ultimately, however, without evidence of legal recognition, this alone isn't enough to demonstrate standalone notability. The two sources I mentioned earlier that called it a neighborhood seem to associate it with Prilep, so absent an indication that this is notable and can be expanded, I have to say redirect. Are there any Macedonian-language speakers that can help? Mz7 (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect - there's not much there in there. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - We should perhaps merge it with Prilep and make a new section of neighborhoods and disricts, so then Prilep get's upgraded to B Class, who agrees? I am also a Serbian speaker, I petrol these pages, some of my relatives live around Prilep Audi1merc2 (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Zied Chaari

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

Subject does not appear to have attracted the non-trivial interest if multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Only one of the subject's "awards" appears to be notable, and that award has no source given for it, nor any indication what "FIIG" stands for. References given here are to his patent, his book, and his journal publications, none of which are evidence of independent notability. KDS4444 (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet criteria 1, 2 and possibly 7 of WP:NACADEMICS while only needing to meet one of these. Supporting this, he is a published author and his speciality of wireless charging is exciting and a sought after technology by manufacturers of electric vehicles as well as robots and electronics, appliances. I found plenty sources in the article. DeVerm (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comment, but subject's entries in GS and GB are tiny and do not appear to meet any of WP:Prof categories. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

thanks for your comment as well, but I just listed which criteria it appears to meet.DeVerm (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I changed my mind after reading the latest !votes and agree with them to delete per WP:BLP1E DeVerm (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the current article is still questionable overall, not convincing for the notability and the improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 19:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His patent and the award he got for it seems to be of the WP:BLP1E variety. 19:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:BLP1E. He appears to be only notable for his invention of the wireless charging system, but that is something which in itself doesn't appear very notable. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speech of President

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

Just a random quote, originally sourced to Lincoln, then when prod'ed, prod removed and the attribution changed. This is probably speedyable, though I'm not 100% sure, so per the book I bring it here. Also a redirect would be pointless since the title is so vague. Crow^Caw 18:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bare quotes like this should not be encyclopedia articles, but they can be added to the speaker's page at Wikiquote instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote. The speaker doesn't appear to have a page there yet, but if this quote can be sourced, the page could be created. clpo13_(talk) 18:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Vidhya Devi Vandari never said that, or if he did he was (mis-)quoting Lincoln. Lincoln did say the last part ("Stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong", but there's no evidence he said the first half, though commonly attributed to him. WQ already has the confirmed part, and has the unconfirmed part so noted as well. Crow^Caw 19:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, delete then. clpo13_(talk) 19:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it doesn't really make sense as a wiki article and it is unsourced Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is not notable as it is similar to many pronouncements by politicians. It may be a paraphrase of a Lincoln quote as User:Crow states. The article title is so vague and general that a reader will find it only by accident. There is no context for the quotation and no source. There is a Wikipedia article about Nepal's president but the name is spelled differently. See Bidhya Devi Bhandari, who, by the way, is a woman. There is no mention of this slogan as some sort of quote in that article. If this belongs anywhere, which I doubt, it could be mentioned there if it could be sourced. Other sources and news reports show the president's first name as Vidya. Spelling the last name with a V rather than Bh appears to be wrong so nothing much would be found under that spelling in any event. I saw no mention of this phrase in about five or six articles, although that does not mean some source may not exist because that would not be a comprehensive search of all articles about Ms. Bhandari. Donner60 (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a widely believed misquotation, and the article is on the borderline of speedy deletion territory as the nominator said. There's almost zero context. There's certainly no scope for expansion from nothing except an outright factual error and a vague handwave of a title into an actual article. Uncle G (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, WP:RS, and probably a few others. —swpb^T 23:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. If there's noteworthy (and properly confirmed) information to be had here, it'd be better placed at the president's article, if we can figure out which president to quote. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus relative to guidelines and policies is for the article to be retained. Of note is:

The article was significantly expanded after the AfD nomination (diff), and now provides an overview of the overall topic (diff), rather than being based largely upon the PricewaterhouseCoopers incident. The PricewaterhouseCoopers incident is only covered in one paragraph in the article at this time.
A delete !vote in the discussion cites WP:ONEEVENT as a rationale for deletion, but this guideline is based upon people notable for only one event, rather than events themselves. Also, the article is not based largely upon the PricewaterhouseCoopers incident at this time.
Several users have stated that the scope of the topic extends well beyond the recent incident coverage, which is also evidenced in the article at this time.
WP:ROUTINE has been cited in the discussion as a rationale for deletion based upon the recent incident coverage, but additional content and sources in the article cover many other aspects of the topic.
Discussion regarding the article's content and a potential merge can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High heel policy

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

This is a news article from a single event triggered by this. It's a top story on a slow news day and it's about one individual not complying with the "policy" (I use that term losely) of one company. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (page creator's comment) Yeah, the topic is triggered by a single event but it's not restricted to that (Nicola Thorp's event and her petition). I mean you can find sources focusing on the very 'high heel' shoes as a dress code. (See [3], [4] and [5]). --Mhhossein (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stupid company policy that was quickly resolved by rescinding the policy once it was called out. Unless the UK bans corporate high heel requirements by law this is just a literal WP:ONEEVENT. Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a notable incident so, per WP:ATD, we should be considering merger with pages such as High-heeled_footwear#Contemporary_scene or Western dress codes rather than deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain how it meets WP's notability standards? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability standards are based upon the existence of sources. This topic is covered by numerous sources. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having sources does not equate to being notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On italian TV the public TG news reported the fact after the petition is going to be discussed in enlgand parliment. The event has international relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.24.159 (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it was WP:ROUTINE coverage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. WP:ROUTINE refers to repetitive news items such as the daily weather or weekly football matches. This incident was nothing of the kind. Andrew D. (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're wrong. This is filler for a slow news day. Sad you can't see that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See what? Lugnuts has presented no evidence to support his "slow news day" theory. My understanding is that this particular story broke on 10 May and has been building for a week, as politicians joined the campaign and the UK companies involved scrambled to change their policies. And, of course, we can take an even longer and broader view of the topic. For example, it is easy to find sources covering this issue from years ago. For example, see Smart Women, Stupid Shoes, and Cynical Employers: The Unlawfulness and Adverse Health Consequences of Sexually Discriminatory Workplace Footwear Requirements for Female Employees. That's from 1997 – nearly 20 years ago! Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - as you can't see it. It's not notable. Saying "there are sources" does not equate to notability. For example, thanks to you user page, Google images and some other sites, I can find plenty of links (shall we call them "sources") about you. Does that make you notable? No. Your logic is flawed at best and embarrassing at worst. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still no evidence for the "slow news day", eh? We should note that Lugnuts says himself that this was a "top story" and presents a link to a substantial article by BBC News. And if we check for fresh coverage, many days later, here's the Scottish Herald, reporting the First Minister's position: Sturgeon backs receptionist denied work due for refusing to wear heels. Andrew D. (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for your help, Davidson. You still don't get WP:NOTNEWS. Duh. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with dress code. Lugnuts is right, this is just WP:ROUTINE filler for a slow news day. Reyk _YO! 17:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dress code article is very general and we can't merge such a specific article to that. We could of course do it, if there were a Dress code in UK. --Mhhossein (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although the recent incident in London has sparked media interest in this policy, it has actually been around for many years. Worth keeping and allowing editors to expand it with some historical background on the policy, pros/cons etc. It is also a slightly different topic to "dress code" as "dress code" covers issues for both men and women, but this is a particular issue for women. MurielMary (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was actually very common in the days (50s to 70s say) when stiletto heels were a mass thing, from damage/safety concerns. I have added stuff and references - the peak period of high heel panic was actually say mid-1950s to mid-60s. I'd urge those not around then to check out the article again. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the kind of incident where one incident made a lot of headlines but is clearly part of a bubbling-under concern that goes back a long time. Sourcing looks pretty good. Blythwood (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with high-heeled footwear. "High heel policy" is not a notable enough concept to warrant a separate article. Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This clearly started out as a non-notable news story and was beefed up to try to salvage its notability. As a result the article is a grab bag of "things that involve high heels." The fact that an article is a mess may not be grounds for deleting it, but in this case it shows that there is "no there there." AnthroMimus (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The news story alone is clearly notable by our standards – please see the WP:GNG. It broke on the 10 May, which is over a week ago now, and is still generating significant coverage. Here's a selection of fresh sources from the last day or so. The issue is going to be debated in Parliament and so it's too soon to say when and how this will conclude. Andrew D. (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew D. (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a valid argument for having an article about the incident, but this article isn't specifically about the incident. Rather it seems to be about any policy at all related to high heels, whether it requires them or prohibits them or just suggests they be avoided. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've got it! So? Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it seems like the general consensus is that the Nicola Thorp incident is notable, but the rest of the content isn't. If this ends up being kept, it should probably be moved to a more specific title to focus on the Nicola Thorp incident. Kaldari (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is the consensus at all - especially as most earlier commenters were clearly unaware of a wider context. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The trend for the topic has been to generalise it rather than to focus on one case. There are many other cases and we're just getting started. For example, I read in the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy about the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. And then there's Kiss My Foot – another high heels protest movement in 2001. It's good to pull this material together because our goal as an encyclopedia is to present information in a summary style. Andrew D. (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: After reading the arguments more carefully I think you're right. It seems many of the commentors completely ignored the actual scope of the article, but there's no reason to count that against the notability of the actual scope. Kaldari (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How did just Kaldari get into this conclusion? Mhhossein (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, if you look at the history you'lll see that it has expanded considerably during the debate (me and others) & their comments may have been reasonable given the article as it was at the points they saw it. But the closer needs to bear this in mind. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Andrew D. - there are a number of similar cases in this area (of requiring high heels to be worn) and it's extremely useful to have an encyclopedia article which brings them all together. MurielMary (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The issue's been around for a while - so ongoing coverage, not just news - and the article now reflects that. This 1997 piece by a law professor [6] talks about the history in the context of labor law and tabulates the heel requirements of US-based airlines at the time. This article's content could be summarized in the High heels article. I suggest that searches for coverage include high heels workplace, high heels labor law, and high heels OSHA. The last search, for instance, brought up a statement from this good secondary source: "...high heels do not meet the standards for health care facilities." [7]. Novickas (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2016 (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. joe decker ^talk 05:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Kincaid

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

She voiced in a handful of anime shows but nothing to demonstrate significant roles in significant anime productions. Boys Be was a lead role. Code Geass was a supporting role. Kotone in To Heart is a lead among an ensemble role but To Heart isn't that notable in the dubbing world. Mermaid Forest / Ayu is a supporting role way down on the list. I don't see her name in AnimeCons.com which means she isn't a major frequenter of anime conventions. Recommend redirect to spouse Liam O'Brien. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing at all for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT, non notable actress. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2016 (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. joe decker ^talk 05:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Faster the Speed, the Bigger the Mess

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

This article is about a non-notable advertisement campaign about driving safely on the island of Ireland. In my opinion, it doesn't pass general notability guidelines and the article has been tagged as such for over 7 years. The article's references do not prove notability of the advertisement campaign as such. st170e^talk 17:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also there are only 5 sources cited on this page, four of which are video links presumably leading to the ad itself. All the sources I found, with the exception of a link on Ireland's RSA website, were blog posts, browser hijackers (wow.com), or the like. Sheepythemouse (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, none of the sources state why this PIF is notable. Donnie Park (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best, simply nothing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:53, 22 May 2016 (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. joe decker ^talk 05:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niklas Feierabend

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

He isn't notable. According to Worldfootball.net, he didn't play any matches for a fully professional team. Kingjeff (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. A tragic death is no reason to maintain an article (WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Giant Snowman 19:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, menacing the articles does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunate but still fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:56, 22 May 2016 (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. joe decker ^talk 05:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient kings of Finland

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

Totally unsourced speculations with no encyclopaedic value about there "probably" having been chieftains called "kings" in prehistoric Finland (the only reference in the article has nothing to do with the subject of the article, but is only about the Finnish word for "king" being "kuningas", and of Germanic origin...), tagged for containing OR since March 2009, but not improved in any way since then. The article seems to have mainly been a playground for indefinitely blocked and site-banned user Art Dominique (indeffed for socking and site-banned by ARBCOM for POV-pushing already back in 2006, but still active as recently as a couple of monts ago...), with multiple blocked/confirmed socks among the contributors in the page history, and is typical of his style: POV material full of weasel words and speculations, with either no sources, fake sources or deliberately misquoted sources. Thomas.W ^talk 16:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BabelStone (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. If there is a proper article to be had, starting fresh would be the best way to go. This article is too flawed, and its history too full of shenanigans. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as imaginable for an article but nothing actually convincing the currently needed Wikipedia materials, delete at best and it's also unlikely there would be anything else to add for this article. SwisterTwister talk 01:04, 22 May 2016 (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. joe decker ^talk 05:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Guillermo Smith

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

Another WP:BLP of an as yet unelected candidate in a future election, which as always is not a claim of notability that gets a person an article in and of itself per WP:NPOL. This one's a bit more on the borderline than most, because there is a potentially legitimate claim of preexisting notability for prior activity, namely his work as governmental affairs manager for Equality Florida -- which is a claim that would be enough if the person could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but isn't enough to confer automatic inclusion rights just because he held the role. But the sourcing for it isn't particularly solid yet, relying on his being namechecked as a provider of soundbite in a couple of news stories about the group rather than coverage that's substantively about him, and the bulk of the sourcing here is stacked on the candidacy.

While I've already stripped it, the article did also lapse into the standard advertorial "the candidate supports peace, love and herbal tea" campaign brochure spiel that defines a big part of the reason why we don't grant candidates Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- and while the article was initially tagged for notability by an NPP reviewer, the tag was removed by the article creator on the basis of a couple more pieces of candidacy-sourcing, rather than the improved Equality Florida sourcing it would take to actually make the difference here. Since a not-yet-elected candidate gets to have a Wikipedia article only if he would already have been eligible for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate, his includability depends on being able to source him over WP:GNG for his work with Equality Florida -- but that's not sourced well enough yet to already get him in the door for it, and the candidacy coverage doesn't assist at all.

So I'm willing to withdraw this if better sourcing can be located for his work with Equality Florida -- but if it can't, then it's a delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins his seat. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a candidate for a state house seat. If elected he will be notable, he is not now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in addition to being a candidate, the individual is notable for being a well-known and active lobbyist in Florida politics. The section that was recently deleted which includes political positions had numerous credible news sources reporting on this individual and his campaign. A person running for office doesn't lack notability simply for not being in office yet. I believe the number of news articles on the subject of or referencing his individual from a variety of sources justifies the existence of this article.Audreyscott (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it's impossible for a candidate to have preexisting notability for other work — in fact, I specifically stated in my nomination statement that it was possible in this instance — but a candidate for office does not gain encyclopedic notability because of being a candidate in and of itself. Part of local media's job is to cover local politics, so all candidates for office always garner some coverage of their candidacy in the local media — but a candidate only becomes suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia if (a) for some reason the volume and type of coverage expands way beyond the bounds of the normal and routine level of local media attention that all candidates always get, or (b) you can properly establish that they would already have qualified for an article for the work they were doing before they became a candidate. If neither of those situations applies, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to become an appropriate article topic.

The fact that you can source some of his statements of opinion, further, does not augment the notability of his candidacy — because any candidate's statements of opinion can always be similarly sourced, so that fact doesn't inherently distinguish his candidacy as more notable than any of the other 500 or 1,000 other people across Florida who are also currently candidates in the same election. It's a core principle of Wikipedia that we are not a public relations platform — we don't exist as a venue for distributing aspiring politicians' campaign brochures.

As I already said above, it's possible that Equality Florida may constitute enough notability to get him over the "preexisting notability for something else" option. But it's not a role that automatically gets him in the door just because he held it — it's a role where the sourcing has to show that he gets over WP:GNG for it, but the sourcing that's been provided so far, which just namechecks his holding of the role and isn't about him as such, isn't enough to demonstrate that. If better sourcing can be added which makes a stronger case for the notability of that work than is present right now, then by all means bring it on. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat, but here's an ex cathedra editorial: "Carlos Guillermo Smith, a lobbyist for Florida's largest gay rights group, told the Herald-Tribune that the bill is..." The Gainesville Sun 24 October 2015,[8]. That was the first of 54 Proquest hits in pretty much all the major Florida dailies, covering his lobbying career. I respect the heavy lifting Bearcat does in identifying the deluge of article about folks running for office, who will not be notable enough to have articles unless they win. It is possible. not likely, but posible, that there is enough on this one to justify an article. IMO it would take WP:HEY a profile in a major media source published before he began exploring candidacy, that is, it would take credible validation of pre-candidacy notability by WP standards. It doesn't look likely to me, but if creator or someone else someone thinks they can source that, feel free to flag me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing yet for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstrahism

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

Non-notable neologism; unreferenced. I'm not even sure that the person who claims to have invented this artistic 'movement' is truly notable; Wikipedia biog makes no mention of his "painting". TheLongTone (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches on Highbeam and Google are turning up no independent 3rd party references for this as an art movement. AllyD (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a neologism that is made up by a non-notable artist that is not in use by anyone else. Delete per WP:NEO Mduvekot (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this reminds me of the discussion at Talk:Jesse Waugh#Pulchrism. - Brianhe (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of named devils in Dungeons & Dragons. Sandstein 08:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Focalor (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

This character currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable character. If this article had any content it would be fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems incredibly minor, even within D&D literature. Maybe a redirect to Mammon (Dungeons & Dragons) would be possible. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of named devils in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of named devils in Dungeons & Dragons. Google results don't show any coverage in reliable sources, and the article has only two primary sources. The character is not currently listed there, so a merge is appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect is fine. I'm opposed to the article being kept as is, though, per my above comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mammon (Dungeons & Dragons), as insufficiently long/detailed for a WP:SS breakout from that article. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Redirect as simply nothing actually convincing of its own article.... SwisterTwister talk 01:03, 22 May 2016 (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. Michig (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Throne of Lies (video game)

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

Doesn't prove notability. Poorly referenced. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:GNG. No coverage whatsoever from reliable sources. Yet another promo article from a game developer. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Throne of Lies (video game) - How is this a promotion or copyright? I'm pulling this directly from a staff post in the forum, even with permission. The image and information can be be found [everywhere | http://presskit.to/tol], pending more cites (I spent 5 hours straight on this page; cut me some slack to add more resources..). Either way, this is NOT copyright infringement at all, and this public press kit is living proof. There is no over-information or marketing aspects - it's very milked down to core aspects, rules, and mechanics. This is no different than Town of Salem page, which is very related - if mine were to be removed, this should as well, along with any other page in such relative relation. Pending mention from Arisa Scott about the game to add to cites, a Unity Technologies developer and GDC speaker from Unity Technologies reinforcing the games existence. This game is new, but this genre is very few and if Town of Salem has a page, there is no reason this game should not have a page by directly relative comparisons. Let me know what's factually incorrect and I will change it -- although the same information is posted everywhere for public use Dylanh724 (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the direct public mention from Arisa Scott, Unity Technologies developer and public speaker at Game Developers Conference 2016, using our game for their demo. Added Made with Unity page, where pages are strictly approved by Unity Technologies staff members that prove that game's existence. This game exists and if this page is taken down, so should Town of Salem by directly relative comparisons. There are only TWO mafia/werewolf party games on the entire internet - the Coke and Pepsi of this genre. I challenge you to find more - This should not be removed. Dylanh724 (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added a Wikimedia creative commmons license to the boxart and added it back from there. I created this art and have permission and can give permission to reproduce to anyone that wants to use it. This is public material. Dylanh724 (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I am a part-creator of this game. However, I'm not here to advertise. It's a fact we exist - and that we're very few of a specific category. If you feel I'm advertising, tell me what I can do to make it not sound like it. You can remove any external link you'd like, although I only listed 2. I have slimmed down ALL information to not include any words that sound promotional rather than non-factual. I am working very hard to make it a neutral page. With your help I can achieve this - but deleting it is not the way, as this is a significant page. Dylanh724 (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. Google results are basically just social media, forum posts, and self-published websites. We would need multiple write-ups by professional journalists in magazines or websites that have editorial control, such as those listed at WP:VG/RS. I don't see that. A mention in a twitter post does not satisfy our notability requirements. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising platform for game developers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. @Dylanh724:, please see WP:GNG about the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Not every game out there has a Wikipedia article; there can be one if notability has been proven. You might also want to check WP:VG/MOS, a guideline on video game articles. Even if the article can stay, it is in dire need of some trimming to get the article up to Wikipedia's standards. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"No coverage" -- This isn't myspace 20 years ago -- Twitter, from official sources, is as much news as Google news. Throne of Lies was at GDC 2016 covered by Unity themselves at a booth and 3 lectures by Arisa Scott, official Unity Technologies staff member (pretty famous) - Town of Salem for example did not even make it there! Twitter was just the proof we were there, from an official spokes(wo)man. The Wiki has already trimmed out all adjectives to even hint at advertising. It's as plain jane as can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanh724 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Dylanh724:, it's not. Primary sources aren't usable, so we can't use Unity, we need reliable sources. For reliable sources on video games, see WP:VG/RS. Websites like Kotaku, GameSpot or Polygon are useful. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"No, @Dylanh724:, it's not" -- community sites from fanpages? Fair enough. Primary sources invalid? Fair enough. But from official spokespeople and Unity, who is more prestigious than any of these sites (well, with the exception of some) and only approve legit games, where it's quite obvious it's not a forgerym then that makes no sense. Why is it any different? Also why can't Unity be used? Their engine made most the games ON that list you shared. Perhaps it should be added to that list since they *only* approve games that are actually games with proof. That's not better than a paid-off blogger? The logic just simply isn't there.Dylanh724 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I backed up the code. Remove if you believe it's unfactual and that Unity Technologies personally approving every game is a sham, and that their spokeswoman using our game at GDC2016 that has only legit games shown there is also a forgery, delete it if you must. Unbiased at this point, it's a fact that official spokespeople from any source is a quality reference, as is Made with Unity, which covers most every game you'll see on that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanh724 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Dylanh724:, again it's not. Your own opinion on Unity does not make it a reliable source. I could be wrong, but so far it seems to me you haven't actually understood Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. We need multiple, independent reliable sources. There's the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine: Throne of Lies, as a video game at least, isn't mentioned there once. We can't have an article on every game out there, and Throne of Lies is no exception. You'll have to prove its notability somehow, and leave your own opinion out of it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 1337Gamer. Lack of reliable sources. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing particularly suggests its own article yet, it's not released yet! Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 01:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

China Eastern Airlines Flight 5443

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

Not notable aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if there were any refs cited, this is a very minor "fender-bender" type event and not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW; not a notable aviation incident. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor incident that clearly fails article notability guidelines. Samf4u (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:NOTNEWS. Trivial aviation incident.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG I want some of the drugs the author is using!!--Petebutt (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2016 (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. joe decker ^talk 05:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Hang Flight 252

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

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

Not notable aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a hoax. "Wei Hang" is the Chinese name for "V Air", and I have found a source for this incident. However, with no fatalities and no damage, it is certainly not notable enough for an article. JohnCD (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to this AfD another article from the same author about an equally non-notable incident, and !vote delete for that, too. JohnCD (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two minor incidents with no damage to the aircraft. Both clearly fail notability guidelines. Samf4u (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do the authors think these articles are noteworthy / warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia--Petebutt (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable incident. (Thank god). Montanabw ^(talk) 17:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as nothing else actually convinces of its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:01, 22 May 2016 (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. deleted three times previously by two different admins, still non-notable spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Library

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

Local public library with no indication of WP:notability. Article has already been speedy deleted and had a disputed prod. References included appear to refer to another library entirely. Google searches not finding any significant coverage. noq (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vijayawada#Governance. Nominator has withdrawn their original nomination and there have been no objections to their merge proposal. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayawada Metropolitan Region

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

A metropolitan region is different from Urban agglomeration. The article references do not provide any official reference which states the existance of metropolitan region. Also, pinging @Eldumpo: as the user was involved in a discussion related to metropolitan areas at Talk:List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_India#India_list.--Vin09 (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Census 2011, it is mentioned as Metropolitan Urban area.. Reference..^[1]Imahesh3847 (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kollam Metropolitan Area also doesn't have any external references other than census 2011 to support it as a Metropolitan area but that page exists, Same goes to Kochi and Thrissur. Imahesh3847 (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be kept. It is clearly mentined in 2011 population about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSWINI (talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India and List of metropolitan areas in India. The reference provided is not official. There should an official recognition like Mumbai Metro Region and an agency which governs it like Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Please note that all the urban clusters such as, Tenali, Mangalagiri, Vijayawada and Guntur and several municipalities are now a part of Amaravati i.e., Andhra Pradesh Capital Region which was earlier known as VGTM Urban Development Authority and also includes newly merger municipalities under the jurisdiction of APCRDA.--Vin09 (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Census 2011 is an Indian official website and it gives all the information Vijayawada Metropolitan Region. Imahesh3847 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Census2011 is not an official website, but Censusindia.gov.in is an official one.--Vin09 (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then pages like Kollam Metropolitan Area and Kochi Metropolitan Area are also UAs but their pages are existed.Imahesh3847 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read there is a difference in definition for an urban agglomeration and a metropolitan area. Check the Reference.--Vin09 (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title of the article was changed and hence, also per Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_62#UA_v_Metro it can merged to Vijayawada#Governance section.--Vin09 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for its own article, information is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 20:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Revoking deletion and suggesting merge As per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#UA_v_Metro and all other similar pages, it can now be merged to Vijayawada#Governance section.--Vin09 (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocommerce

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Subtropical-man with no rationale on talk (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD) and a court edit summary "WP:DEPROD - disputed". Since the deprodded didn't bother with any meaningful rationale, I will just repeat my prod rationale, and add this: I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Obviously notable. Just go to the trade association's website, click on the our members section, click on any of the national associations, and go to their websites and search for "Eurocommerce". For example British Retail Consortium describes Eurocommerce as "our EU trade association Eurocommerce" [9] and says "BRC is a member of EuroCommerce, our European umbrella association" [10]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And which part of GNG or NCOMPANY does that satisfy? Those companies may file the same tax form or use the same standard issue papaerclip, which does not make that tax form or paperclip notable. Notability is not inherited, so if notable company belons to some umbrealla organization, it does not make that umbrella organization notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The significance of this pan-European trade organization is clear from the news sources. Simple searches of the word "EuroCommerce", limited to various top-echelon news sources like nytimes.com, wsj.com, theguardian.com, etc., turn up dozens of examples of news stories that cover the activities of this important organization. On the other hand, the current version of the article reads very much like a promotional mission statement: flack phrasing like "EuroCommerce is the official European social partner for the retail and wholesale sector, and plays an active role in European social dialogue" and "EuroCommerce brings together the expertise of its members and secretariat to help inform and contribute to debate in a range of policies" is far from the ideal. So I think we should keep this page, but I would also support stubbing it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you show us some of those news sources? I couldn't and still cannot find any that satisfy the requirement of in-depth (not in passing) coverage, or that are reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stub, per Arxiloxos.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as the current article's noticeable promotional tone is of concern and unless this can be immediately better improved, it's still questionable. Delete for now and restart if needed. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: The above delete opinion was typed in and saved only 1 minute 40 seconds after the user's delete !vote in another deletion debate. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the tone of it seriously needs to be changed so it doesn't read like an advert.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaiho (talk • contribs) 04:59, May 9, 2016‎ (UTC)
- Sigh. WP:JUSTAVOTE has no place in the deletion discussion, through the rest of the comment above is valid - but as a comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ok then. My reason to keep is the same as what the people above with the same opinion stated. NikolaiHo 03:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cut the quasi promo. The organization is 23+ years old, and there are plenty of sources that can be referenced, below is just a handful I have added, and subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH through non-trivial coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. European Union Committee (2009). EU Consumer Rights Directive: Evidence. The Stationery Office. pp. 58–. ISBN 978-0-10-844459-3.
Andrew Martin; George Ross (1999). The Brave New World of European Labor: European Trade Unions at the Millennium. Berghahn Books. pp. 339–. ISBN 978-1-57181-168-4.
Meike Rodekamp (17 June 2013). Their Members' Voice: Civil Society Organisations in the European Union. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 166–. ISBN 978-3-658-02213-6.
Douglas R. Imig (2001). Contentious Europeans: Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 223–. ISBN 978-0-7425-0084-6.
Thomas Bernauer (28 June 2016). Genes, Trade, and Regulation: The Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology. Princeton University Press. pp. 87–. ISBN 978-1-4008-8013-3.
Justin Greenwood (1995). European Casebook on Business Alliances. Prentice Hall. pp. 119–. ISBN 978-0-13-338039-2. About sixty EC officials attended the annual European Day of Commerce during which Euro- Commerce tries to give ... For example, in its first year of existence (1993), EuroCommerce participated in exercises on: the company-feedback ...
Wolfgang Lecher; Hans-Wolfgang Platzer (11 September 2002). European Union - European Industrial Relations?: Global Challenge, National Development and Transitional Dynamics. Routledge. pp. 106–. ISBN 978-1-134-72489-5.
Vacher's European Companion. 89-91. A. S. Kerswil Limited. 1994. pp. 188–.

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is actually merge to Delta Electronics, but the article has been deleted in the meanwhile. If someone needs the text for merging elsewhere, please contact any administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Controls

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bradv without a ping back to me (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD), and with just this edit summary "Remove prod - article is about a well-established company, and has plenty of sources". I have wasted 20 minutes of my life reviewing those "sources", which are primarily mentions in passing and press releases. Even coverage in trade journals is sparse here, the only one which seems a bit in depth is [11], but the language in that clearly suggests it is a promo puff piece. Summarizing: this entry is entirely based on press releases, mentions in passing and primary sources. Nothing here makes it notable for an encyclopedia, it is a mid-sized business as usual that almost certainly paid a WP:SPA (see Canadalovers24 (talk · contribs)) for this entry. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam, and we should be more vigilant to cleaning it up from our project. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I dePRODed it the second time. Passes WP:GNG. Who, how or why it was created is beside the point. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you realize that an argument "Passes WP:GNG" is not argument at all; it is a statement of fact and therefore not accepted in deletion discussions, please WP:ITSNOTABLE. And while you are correct the persona of the author has no direct brearing on an AfD, it does serve to illustrate the point that majority of spam articles are created by SPAs. I would urge you to consider whether defending their promotional spam is a worthwhile contribution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A company should be subject of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Pretty much all non-trivial coverage cited in the article comes from either explicit press releases or articles that should be considered as press releases judging from their tone. In addition, WP:AUD states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". It seems that great many of the sources used are highly specialized engineering journals of limited coverage and should not be used to establish notability. I'm sure it's a significant company in its line of business, but I fail to find non-specialized independent sources that would provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Unless such are provided, the article should be deleted. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've heard of this company. Considering their advertising budget, I'm surprised there are not better sources available. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Delta Electronics. This barely notable company was just acquired (reliable, independent source), a recent development that, I'm guessing, the nominator was not aware of (but the article creator probably was). The parent company, Delta Electronics, is notable; that article should be updated to recognize this acquisition. Best, —Prhart com♥ 14:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with the proposed merge suggested by Prhartcom. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as the other article is deleted and thus I go with my original suggestion still to delete, as there's nothing keepable here to its own notability. Redirect to Delta Electronics at best as I would've suggested deleting altogether or deleting and redirecting to the other company, still certainly questionable for own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Delta Electronics per Prhartcom above. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and do not merge-- the article for Delta Electroncis is even worse, and I've listed it for CSD G11. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 28 May 2016 (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. Michig (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rupesh kumar tyagi

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

Does not meet the requirements of either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I just tidied up this article to make it more clear. Nothing to show notability: he is part of a team that is publishing journal articles, but nothing suggests he personally has any leading role. "Too soon" may be right. Emeraude (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note also that the article's creator was User:TyagiRK - clear COI/self-promotion issue. Emeraude (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFNN and WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2016 (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) SSTflyer 02:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Pervushin

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

Non-notable mathematician. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He discovered the 9th perfect number in 1883. See List_of_perfect_numbers. The 8th perfect number was discovered by Euler in 1772. Even it was not the largest perfect number known by that time (the 12th perfect number was dicovered by Lucas in 1876), the discovery is still notable. Only two more perfect numbers were discovered after that (10th and 11th) without computers. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Russian Wikipedia article has convincing sources for WP:GNG (in two Russian-language print encyclopedias, but sources don't need to be in English). I also found what appears to be a journal article about him, but only by reference (I haven't found the article itself): A. E. Raik. Ural'skii matematik Ivan Mikheevich Pervushin. Istoriko-Matematicheskie Issledovaniya 6 (1953). 535-572. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2016 (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. Michig (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McElvene

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

Non-notable. Played only one season of college ball with average numbers and was unknown before his death, which, while tragic, does not automatically establish notability. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Death is receiving a lot of coverage..for now I will be neutral, let's see with time how much more coverage he gets, like Len Bias. Antonio The Captain Sexy Martin (dime) 04:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect, there's no comparison between the two. Bias was twice an All-American and was the #2 overall draft selection by the then-defending NBA champions, among other accomplishments. McElvene received any kind of extensive media coverage only after his death, and that was mainly because of his age (20). sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bias had already met WP:GNG at the time of his death by virtue of his stellar college career. No comparison. Rikster2 (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable college player, he hasn't received any notable awards, nor is there anything else that I can see to pass GNG Seasider91 (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Beemer69. JTtheOG (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Sad story, but the subject is not notable. Rikster2 (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Subject had little to no coverage before his death. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2016 (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. Michig (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miscarriages of Justice: University of Limerick

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

This appears to be pure advocacy--advocacy that I have considerable sympathy for, but has no place in an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 01:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonencyclopedic opinion piece. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that the article in its current form is advocacy. If this would have received significant coverage in the media, I wouldn't have been opposed to an encyclopaedic summary. But there is hardly any independent coverage and hence, it doesn't merit an inclusion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it seems to me that the problem is that the page isn't really clear what the purpose of this project would be. If it was to correct legal miscarriage of justice, then that kind of project might well be notable enough to have a WP page as per California Innocence Project and other examples. But as it is written, the project just seems to be a vaguely academic information gathering project by undergraduates. The problem is that if it is the former, it is WP:TOOSOON as I can't see any coverage of convictions overturned etc. If the latter, it is hard to see this as much more than an essay. So on that basis, I'm going to !vote delete. JMWt (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JMWt. I am not sure whether I understood the article clearly, as it appears to be about a website that promotes awareness of past miscarriages of justice, in some cases where the defendant was released years before the website was founded, as opposed to an organization which advocates on behalf of people who are currently serving time due to wrongful convictions. The only source provided in the article is a broken link; the article says, "In 2012 the original group came up with the idea of a website that can be found while browsing the University of Limerick's main website", but I can't find their website myself despite searching on the university's website. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Forum of Canada

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

The subject of this article appears to fail general notability guidelines, as it lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said sources, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should evidence of such coverage be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was created in 2007. The organization has a very broad-sounding name but may be active only in a local area. I think that "redirect" or "merge" (and redirect) are usually better outcomes in AFDs. This "Islamic Forum of Canada" has bought land and is raising monies for a new masjid / mosque, and seems to be located in Brampton, Ontario. There is a "Brampton Mosque" which appears in List of mosques in Canada, I wonder if that is related. Could this article be merged/redirected to a line in the list of mosques in Canada article? Or where else? --do ncr am 01:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only one reference, which is the organization website. There is no indication of meeting WP:GNG. OtterAM (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After searching, however, I find only passing mentions of the mosque/organization, and not anything providing substantial information about it. A few references added since the AFD began, in this version are not substantially about it. (And one of the references, the FrontPage one, seems quite unreliable and inappropriate: it appears to stitch together several quotes, possibly quite out of context, to make an inflammatory accusation against the president of the organization. Whether or not there is any iota of truth in the accusation, reporting this further would be a BLP-violation in Wikipedia.) Best to delete. However, I feel bad for the I.P. editor whose good faith addition of innocuous information (like that the organization meets for prayer on Friday) seems to have brought this article to attention and then to AFD. --do ncr am 04:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing actually suggesting its own particular notable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:58, 22 May 2016 (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] [1]

[1]