Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nairspecht (talk | contribs) at 18:57, 20 October 2016 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kate_McWilliams (FWDS)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to England. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|England|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to England. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to UK.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


England

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate McWilliams

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

Not factual and not notable enough for a Wikipedia article TTFTAKM (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it extremely important that Wikipedia is as factual as possible. Kate McWilliams was indeed known as the youngest commercial airline captain ever (and she is indeed a commercial airline captain), however, this was a PR stunt by easyjet and was relayed to the media by the airline and she is, in fact, not the youngest. The media did not do any fact checking and took the airline's word for it. In fact, most of the referenced articles that are used on this Wikipedia page use quotation marks (ie quoting easyJet) so they do not have to do the fact checking. The references to the fact she is not the youngest include other examples of younger captains, both male and female, who are of more note than Kate McWilliams. So therefore, I believe that this article should be deleted for two reasons. 1) it is not factually correct and 2) it is insignificant to have an article written about it.TTFTAKM (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 10:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite I agree the article is inaccurate but she has had a lot of coverage on her article (8 International news sources) so she more than passes WP:GNG.JohnTombs48 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would point out that it is a false article. Wikipedia should not have false articles on it, neither merged with another article or rewritten. Everyone who makes the news, even briefly (she made the news for a couple of weeks maybe) would have an article then. TTFTAKM (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sure this person has achieved quite a bit in their life to date and there are a number of sources covering this but they are all mostly about the same thing and it hardly seems to be significant coverage (hence WP:BLP1E). No evidence of lasting notability that I can see. Consider if this article were still in existence in ten years time (assuming Wikipedia is too for that matter), will she have continued to received coverage in WP:RS over that period sufficient to allow the biography to be complete and up to date? I'm speculating of cse but unless she was to do *something* else of note in that time (as opposed to just carrying on living a normal life, with normal career and personal achievements etc.) then the answer would very likely be no. Ultimately then, like many people, the subject is probably just a normal person who has briefly come to the attention of a bloated and over-resourced media which reports nearly anything over and over again just to fill space (or local content rules), and that is likely to be all. Anotherclown (talk) 02:26, 30 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maylord Shopping Centre

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

Non notable shopping centre, Google News brings up 3 results being mentions, and one result inregards to the centre having a new owner, I'd be happy to use it however that's not enough notability-wise, Google books brings up nothing, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 13:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:16, 27 October 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  15:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Troy

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

Failed verification. While there are indications of notability per WP:MUSICBIO#C2, searching for Elizabeth Troy on the Official Charts Company website yields no results. Launchballer 12:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you search for the singles mentioned in the article you will get results and it is definitely her. See: Greater Love, Enough is Enough. Hold onto Me, Forever Young (2nd last entry). She seems to be credited as "XYZ FT Elizabth Troy" or similar difficult to parse-able names. Regarding notability, she seems to pass WP:MUSICBIO in several points. She had a several singles on the UK music charts, which were very likly aired in national broadcasting stations due to their chart positions. Sources are probably partially offline, because some of her work was in the 90s. Article should therefore not be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - she is a regular part of Clean Bandit performances (which certainly meets notability guidelines). The structure of Clean Bandit is unusual in that it doesn't have a resident lead singer (apart from occasionally Grace Chatto). But since none of the permanent members of the band currently have their own biography pages then it seems inconsistent to list this one, given that Elisabeth Troy's primarily notability is for her work with that band. Shritwod (talk) 09:20, 18 November 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 Uttoxeter. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Park Middle School

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

Should be redirected to the locality Uttoxeter (or possibly the council Staffordshire County Council) per the norm for non-notable middle schools. I see no claim to notability in this article for the school or the building it is in, and I can find no reliable sources showing the notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GROUP. Meters (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recreated three days after a speedy deletion on promo grounds. Meters (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per long-established consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. It would be nice if there were a speedy process for this to avoid clogging AfD. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:11, 24 October 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 no consensus. Opinion is pretty evenly split, and I don't see any killer arguments on either side. I do see lots of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT arguments on both sides. Looking mostly at the more cogent arguments, we don't seem to have the sources we should, but several of the people on the keep side assert that this person is so extraordinary that we can get by on the weak sourcing. Neither of these camps have unambiguously made their case, so No Consensus it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Butterfield

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

I nominated this page for deletion seven years ago and am doing so again for two reasons. The most important one is that consensus has changed: in 2009 many argued to keep the article on the basis that being the oldest man was automatically notable. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards and numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted/redirected based on their individual merits. This leads me to the second reason, which is that in seven years, it has still not been demonstrated that this individual is covered in multiple, non-trivial, third-party reliable sources as required by WP:N. Of the three sources currently on the page, one is a list (trivial), one is an obituary (not enough to sustain notability), and the third is an interest piece which adds value, but not to the point of this meriting a stand-alone article, as it could never be expanded beyond a stub unless the availability of sources is demonstrated clearly. Any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia Canadian Paul 15:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says "being the oldest man in the world makes you notable". Anyway, the guidelines at the WP:WOP Wikiproject tell us an article like this (only one or two sources establishing notability) belongs on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Marge to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies. Frederick Butterfield is not only former the world's oldest man, but also one of the first recorded male supercentenarian (people who above the age of 110) and one of the earliest supercentenarian, so important. The problem of this page is being short, but not a reason to delete this page. I think Marge to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies is better.--Inception2010 (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG. I question whether two blurbs, even in good newspapers, is enough to establish notability. There's a whole lot of "world's oldest man is notable" in this thread, but not much backing that up. We don't have a notability guideline that says that, and I eagerly await sourcing that shows this guy is actually notable. So far, we haven't seen it. ~ Rob13Talk 08:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see that much has changed since first AfD. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with DGG that being the world's oldest man crosses a threshold of notability that "oldest man in country x" does not. It is enough to get him into the Guiness book of Records and having obits in both the Times and Guardian gets him past the GNG criteria. Yes, the details of the rest of his life are of little importance, but we choose, rightly or wrongly, not to have importance as an inclusion criteria. We have instead notability as our main criteria, and two major national quality newspapers and the world renowned Guiness book of Records have taken note of him and his life. SpinningSpark 23:30, 9 November 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. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 17:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don-Bur

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

I declined a CSD A7 for this, but efforts to find reliable independent sources are proving fruitless. It's a very familiar brand, albeit not quite Fruehauf or Boalloy in terms of non-truckie name recognition, but those of us who regularly wear grooves in the UK's motorway network this will eb a well known name. And yet: I cannot source it. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:07, 9 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Ferguson

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

Fails both criteria of WP:NFOOTY EchetusXe 18:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I'd say that this person makes the general notability guidelines as the main subject of several articles, as cited eg [1], [2], [3], [4]. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Happy to replace this with delete if the transfer news is deemed to be routine. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
near future? WP:Crystal? Govvy (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And surely articles for the players from the "U23" teams as well? OGLV (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if they pass the criteria. You're acting as if Wikipedia is running out of server space. --Jimbo[online] 13:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NB...not all academy and youth players, only the ones who pass the criteria of playing in fully-professional competitions. --Jimbo[online] 13:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - according to the FA handbook, First Team Competitive Matches (FTCM) are defined as "FTCM are matches in the following competitions: FA Challenge Cup, FA Challenge Trophy, FA Premier League, Football League, Football League Cup, Football League Trophy, the National League and The FA WSL." So East Grinstead Town versus Three Bridges in the FA Trophy is a ‘First Team Competitive Match’.--EchetusXe 10:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Agree. But they aren't fully professional clubs in fully professional leagues. As has been mentioned elsewhere, matches between first teams in fully professional leagues, in cup competitions, is in keeping with the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL despite not matching it to the letter. OGLV (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I waited a while to make a decision the first lot of references on the article are from primary sources and the Grays Athletic ref is pointing to a different player, other sources are noting his movement around the football league. Although they are notes of his name these few articles are not enough to pass to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Because the question is, is a match against an u23 academy team notable. I don't think it is, if you're not playing against another first team I would say this is notable but currently I would say it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The FA considers them to be first teams though, just with additional selection criteria based on age. "The Competition is a ‘First Team Competitive Match’ for the purposes of the Football Associations Regulations for Disciplinary Procedures" as per the tournament rules. OGLV (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. NFOOTY specifically discusses only fully professional leagues. General consensus is that the spirit of this can be extended to cup competitions when the matches are between teams from FPLs. However, in this instance the EFL trophy has specific team restrictions that fundamentally set it apart from other competitions. This is not a senior first team competition in the same way the FA Cup or football league are. GNG is also failed, the sources mentioned above are simple routine transfer talk. Fenix down (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 10:28, 21 October 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. Nobody contests deletion, notability appears borderline at best, and as reported here, the subject himself has requested deletion via OTRS.  Sandstein  11:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Shaw (theatre director)

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

With quite a few Robert Shaws existing, I had some difficulty with my work BEFORE nominating the page, but everything I found relating to this Shaw was one-sentence mentions of "run by Shaw" or "translated by Shaw." The references in the article do little more than this as well. At this time it appears he is a MILL director and does not meet GNG. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the subject of the article contacted OTRS (VRTS ticket # 2016101510004124) and provided the following references, commenting: "This list by no means comprehensive but it is what I have been able to find in the last half hour or so. I’m fairly sure most of these mention me by name. If any of them don’t, they are still about me in the sense that they are a review of my work."
http://www.threeweeksedinburgh.com/article/robert-shaw-inside-intelligence-on-the-fringes-new-play-thriller/
http://www.whatsonstage.com/london-theatre/reviews/the-medium-the-wanton-sublime-arcola-theatre_38611.html
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/07/sylvia-plath-radio-play
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/theater/26plath.html?_r=0
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/dec/03/sylviaplath-poetry
http://www.whatsonstage.com/edinburgh-theatre/news/08-2011/robert-shaw-on-isadora-duncan-_8082.html
http://oughttobeclowns.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/review-product-arcola.html
http://bargaintheatreland.com/the-wanton-sublime-and-the-medium-arcola-theatre-london/
http://www.whatsonstage.com/london-theatre/reviews/the-medium-the-wanton-sublime-arcola-theatre_38611.html
http://playstosee.com/the-wanton-sublime-and-the-medium/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opera/what-to-see/grimeborn-festival-arcola-review/
http://www.reviewsgate.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8184
http://civiliantheatre.com/2015-2/the-medium-the-wanton-sublime
http://www.thestateofthearts.co.uk/2015/08/27/plainchant-meets-plain-crazy-at-this-years-grimeborn-festival
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/stage/edinburgh-festival/article4179896.ece
http://www.timeout.com/london/theatre/mark-ravenhill-product-review
http://edinburghfestival.list.co.uk/article/63165-mark-ravenhill-product/
http://exeuntmagazine.com/reviews/product/
http://www.broadwaybaby.com/shows/mark-ravenhill-product/701299
http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/product-assembly-hall-10486
http://www.whatsonstage.com/edinburgh-theatre/reviews/08-2014/product-ravenhill-poulet_35292.html
http://www.femalearts.com/node/2616
https://benhuxleyblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/30/review-poena-5x1/
http://www.edfestmag.com/poena-5x1-or-how-i-came-to-agree-with-the-right-wing-thinking/
http://www.broadwaybaby.com//shows/poena-5x1/713962
http://www.theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2016/08/edinburgh-festival-fringe-2016-review-poena-5x1/
http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/poena-5x1-underbelly-med-13178
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/reviews/teddy-and-topsy-old-red-lion-londonbrhenri-oguike-linbury-studio-london-2240291.html
http://www.timeout.com/london/dance/review/2130/teddy-topsy
http://thepublicreviews.blogspot.com/2009/01/3-women-jermyn-street-theatre.html
http://ind.pn/hlh9DA
http://www.edfestmag.co.uk/fringe/theatre/1217-sylvia-plath-three-women-the-first-revival
http://www.fringereview.co.uk/fringeReview/3045.html
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/festivals-2009/Theatre-review-Sylvia-Plath-.5548668.jp
http://edinburgh.threeweeks.co.uk/review/7459
http://www.broadwaybaby.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7235
http://www.edinburghguide.com/festival/2010/edinburghfringe/poemwithoutaheroreview-6123
http://edinburgh.threeweeks.co.uk/review/9387
http://theater.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/theater/reviews/28plath.html
http://www.nytheatre.com/nytheatre/showpage.php?t=thre11079
http://www.theasy.com/Reviews/threewomen.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/interactive/2009/jan/07/robert-shaw-sylvia-plath
http://sylviaplathinfo.blogspot.com/2010/10/i-have-never-seen-thing-so-clear-sylvia.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-10-13/theater/dead-poet-doubleheader-wish-i-had-a-sylvia-plath-and-three-women/
http://www.backstage.com/bso/content_display/reviews/ny-theatre-reviews/e3id03412c644d4e5cd0982c69250db4322
http://newyork.timeout.com/arts-culture/theater/333903/three-women
http://www.edinburghguide.com/festival/2010/edinburghfringe/teddyandtopsyreview-5944
http://www.edinburghspotlight.com/2010/08/fringe-review-teddy-and-topsy-c/
http://ed.thestage.co.uk/reviews/917
http://www.whatsonstage.com/reviews/theatre/edinburgh/E8831282572755/Some+Gorgeous+Accident.html
http://www.edinburghguide.com/festival/2010/edinburghfringe/somegorgeousaccidentreview-6299
I did not check all of those references in detail; merely looking at the URLs some seem to be blogs and likely do not meet our standards of reliability. Of those I did look at, few devoted more than a single sentence to Mr Shaw himself. The best I'm aware of are the NYT and The Guardian, the first of which is already cited in the article itself. Huon (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got bored and decided to go through them all. There is definitely enough in here to have an article on Inside Intelligence, but half the articles didn't even mention Shaw by name, and all but three of the rest were variations on "...directed by Shaw". The final three ([5] [6] [7]) are just interviews (and more talk about the plays themselves). For the record, I was not counting the NYT/Guardian articles given by Huon that are already in the article. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - according to more recent communication via OTRS, Mr Shaw would like to see the article deleted as soon as possible. So the above is not meant to be taken as an attempt to stave off deletion. Huon (talk) 18:24, 16 October 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. MBisanz talk 01:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Turner (gymnast)

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

Subject does not meet the notability guidelines. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:42, 31 October 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) —UY Scuti Talk 17:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Yourself Dizzy

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

No evidence that this song meets the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A WP:BEFORE on songs often benefits from checking the chart sites. In this case, the song was UK national No. 2 on 23 February 1980, which is pretty unambiguous notability. (I always google on "songname" "charts" and "songname site:billboard.com" as a start.) I also note that this claim is in the intro of the article - David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: horrible cheesy seaside cabaret disco record, I remember it well. But it was a very big hit in the UK and also made no. 2 in Ireland, no. 5 in Belgium, and no. 12 in the Netherlands, so plenty of chart action. Very likely interviews with the band in the music press of the time, despite their total lack of cool. Richard3120 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added sources for the single's chart positions and silver certification in the UK. Richard3120 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Fun

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

not notable firm; all of the notices and minor awards are just routine for any business of this sort. A concentration of really minor awards and promotional articles is characteristic of an attempt to write a promotional article about a minor company. Some articles like this are done by paid editors; some by good-faith new editors copying what the paid editors do, because they think that is what we want here. It's time to remove the bad examples. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurley, James (February 22, 2011). "Is the time right for a costly expansion at Mobile Fun?". The Telegraph. Retrieved October 15, 2016.
It's an interview with their exec., published in a section called "Business Club", which is a newsletter/blog that one can become a "member" of. It's an advertorial. I think its time we stoped counting interviews with the ceo as evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: It's often standard practice for reporters for reliable news sources to actually speak with people involved in the companies they report upon. It would be biased for them not to. The Telegraph article example I posted above has a decent amount of background coverage about the company. Also "joining" The Telegraph's Business Club only means that those that "join" will receive a newsletter from The Telegraph (see this link). It does not appear at all that anyone can write anything and The Telegraph will automatically publish it, just from joining to receive a newsletter. Also per this source, the author of The Telegraph article, James Hurley, was an editor for both of The Telegraph newspapers for over three years, and when comparing the dates of these respective articles, it appears quite likely that Hurley was an editor at the time the source I provided above was published. Also, by referring to the article as an advertorial, you imply that the Mobile Fun paid The Telegraph to publish the article. However, such assertions are best proven with actual evidence. For example, the article does not state anywhere "paid content", "paid advertisement", or the like. Actual advertorials often have such types of "paid content" disclaimers, in order to maintain journalistic objectivity. No offense, but relative to my research about the source and author, I find the statement "it's an advertorial" to be unconvincing, particularly relative to the definition of what an advertorial actually comprises. I'm also skeptical of the notion that The Telegraph was compensated by the company to publish the article. I may not volunteer more of my time to further research this company, so perhaps the article will simply be deleted regardless of source availability, since it's described in part as promotional. North America1000 16:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
not all coi involves money. I'd suspect some is quid pro quo journalism. You give me something interesting, and I print it as you would like it. Just an hypothesis, and we can make many. I judge by the content, which I can actually see. One of the dangers of WP is the uncritical acceptance of sources. Material worded like advertising is intrinsically unreliable, no matter where it occurs. If I see it anywhere, I know not to believe it , or take it seriously for any purpose, except to say what the writer intended to say or let be said in his name. --I cannot determine his purpose. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:24, 2 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Balser

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

Minor basketball player who fails to meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remain. Meets WP:NCOLLATH Gained national media coverage as an individual player throughout High school, Professional and International Career. Bryan has represented England Basketball at every level U15 to Senior Men. Won every nation trophy of his generation for both school, county and club from U17 and U19. Played in the British Basketball League for 8 years winning a Uniball Trophy with London Towers and competed in the Euroleague with the London Towers. Balser was selected for the England Senior Men's team by Laszlo Nemeth at the age of 25 in 1999 during his professional career at TV Tigers. Balser was top scorer in the Budweiser League Championship final at Wembley Arena in 1998-99.Derick Balser (talk) 06:58, 20 October 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The southampton advertiser

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ESO (band)

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

Promotional article for non-notable band, which fails all the criteria at WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Only referenced from the band's own facebook page. Purported record label is owned by band members (not to be confused with notable publishers with a similar name). Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 18:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 18:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Nordic Nightfury 15:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 15:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 15:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 15:59, 2 November 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 88 Films releases

List of 88 Films releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced list of films that are or will be reissued. Smell of advertising The Banner talk 13:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note the parent article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/88 Films. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for all the problems you seem to be finding, how about messaging me first before deciding to delete my work. if you're going to delete this article, then i suggest you delete every other article which is similar to mine. list of arrow films, list of.....films. you see my point. there is a category. Lists of films by home video label. this is my contribution to that category. it is a complete list which i update every time 88 films make an announcement. it is simply a reference article for collectors who wish to collect their films. my references on the article got removed not by me. whereas the list of arrow films have references that link their titles to their website for purchase. i do not have these links on my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kn5150 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Michig and Zlassiter: Merge is no longer possible. What are your views now?  Sandstein  22:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:54, 31 October 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. Cavarrone 07:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D/C (musician)

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

My specific PROD removed one day before its set time for deletion, with the lone basis of an existing Allmusic link, which of course is not convincing for notability alone; everything here is not at all substantial, both information and sources, and none is to be expected since he's only been active a year. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the allmusic link was not existing as I added it and it is a biography rather than just a listing which is more than most musicians get on allmusic, mainly just listings.It is early in the career of the act so this is borderline but he does seem notable. Regarding the prod removal I tend to leave it to the last minute in the hope that someone else will have deprodded it. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is still not actually showing us how, where and why the subject is convincingly notable for an article, yet despite also having listed all of my analyzed concerns above. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good start, but I'd like more. Surprised he couldn't get any chart action as yet - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. We have a short Allmusic bio, plus [8] (yes I know it's an interview, but also contains content written about him), [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Not great in terms of depth, but probably covered widely enough to justify keeping. --Michig (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Simply having an Allmusic is still questionable for the needed substance and going into some of these, I notice they are not only questionable music blogs, but they also simply advertise him, such as the fact of his career plans and the last one apparently only being some "5 best new songs this week", hardly actual substance, especially considering how underwhelming the article currently is. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 29 October 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) –Davey2010Talk 23:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys James

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

I still confirm my PROD, as these sources added are simply only interviews, triviality and other unconvincing sources; there is no inherited notability from simply appearing at some shows and events. SwisterTwister talk 16:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks aside, I'll note I actually searched at local news media and am only finding interviews and other unconvincing sources (also then not including some of the ones listed as it is). SwisterTwister talk 16:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:04, 17 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Coachway

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

Non notable coach interchange, This had been moved to Calcot Coachway however I've reverted but anyway that aside, There's nothing at all on this coach station and the only sources in the article are IKEA store locations, Sainsburys store locations and a few bus timetables, Can't find any evidence of notability on Google News, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 22:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching "coachway uk" on Google only returns images of actual coaches, I'm assuming they more or less look like that in the layout but it wouldn't be that busy/packed, I don't think these are start and terminate for coaches tho - I think it's just a normal bus stop for coaches and reading the article I think only one bus terminates here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 09:41, 17 October 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. One "keep" editor is now blocked as a sock and the other's argument appears to have been rebutted.  Sandstein  09:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Delaney

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

Fails WP:RLN & WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand your use of the routine link. Per GNG the articles show "Significant coverage", by addressesing the topic directly and in detail. They are "Reliable" as they are almost uniformly divorced from his current club. As before the "Sources" are almost entirely secondary sources, and as such provide the most objective evidence of notability. Again as before being largely newspaper publications they are "Independent of the subject" with the sources being many & numerous.Fleets (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial mentions in match reports are not considered significant coverage. The only source that would probably be considered significant is this one, but given the story is on a blog website, it can hardly be considered reliable. J Mo 101 (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where you are coming from by using Bill Clinton's band, but you are using an example that would be related to a jazz band that would be a handful of individuals. A breakdown of 30 plus sportspeople on a rugby league field would see it very hard to give a full breakdown of an individuals performance, without newspaper articles turning into essays. As before the sources are both wide-ranging and has ten times the number of sources of the likes of Leroy Cudjoe. Whilst I would not equate the pairs notability, I do stress that Brad Delaney did meet the criteria that was in place at WPRL at the time of the articles creation, and that there is work to update the notability for rugby league currently underway. Within the current wording there is also the flexibility to argue that he has played in the Challenge Cup against a SL club, and with the loose wording he qualified on his debut match.Fleets (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Challenge Cup is not a fully professional competition. Appreciate the wording of RLN could be clearer, but it is meant to only apply to players who make cup appearances for a Super League team. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is the FA Cup, but back to the Challenge Cup. That is one of the many details that I am working upon to bring the existing RLN up to scratch.Fleets (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:15, 23 October 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. MBisanz talk 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myrea Pettit

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

Fails GNG: Unable to verify independent, reliable sources offering more than a trivial mention. Worldcat alone obviously doesn't establish notability. —swpbT 13:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep though it's a bit in a gray area, I found the following, not great, but not completely trivial either. We do have to acknowledge that people who do this type of genre-focused art will not have coverage in the New York TImes, even if they are fairly well-recognized within their genre. Montanabw(talk) 21:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources located:

—swpbT 20:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Why is it so difficult to just say, "here is my assessment of the sources presented" without adding the personal attack language? This was far from a "signature blind dump of what must be every google hit" (If it was, you'd see facebook and instagram...), it's a presentation of what I could find that is potentially useful to establish notability. Even I think this one is not the hill to die on, but I think it's important to give the article a fair look and not just dismiss it because of its subject content. Montanabw(talk) 22:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure you want to challenge the idea that this was a "blind" dump? The alternative, that you examined each page, saw (or failed to see) that it was invalid, and still posted it, is far more damning. Supposing that you were merely lazy is the best case scenario. —swpbT 12:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try this, swpb: "I looked at the pages, I filtered out what was obvious cruft, and what is left I thought provided some potential indicia of notability and have presented them here for the community to decide. Genre artists aren't going to be covered in the New York Times and I read WP:N as saying we have a presumption of notability in the gray areas, and fairy artists, are, unquestionably, in a genre and a gray area. But I am trying to put my preconceptions aside and look at the issue objectively. Even you note the Northampton one is potentially OK, we all know many press releases do not have authors and are still legitimate sources, and unless you can assert the faemagazine is not independent, that's two, even if you think it's . If your spam filter is blocking sites like wisewomanmentor, hm, that's a potential problem, but I can load it and it appears to be powered by http://www.wildapricot.com, which looks like a Canadian site that provides cloud services for nonprofit groups; sometimes these smaller web sites do get blacklisted for a while if they generate a lot of unexpected traffic, but it looks like it's not a spam site to me. I see three potentially decent sources plus some additional mentions and pretty significant business being generated. To me that all leads up to "weak keep." This isn't a hill I'm going to die on, but I am getting quite sick of being personally attacked for making a sincere attempt to see if there is some potential indicia of notability. Montanabw(talk) 22:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Full points for effort, but if multiple people have said that your estimation of notability is off - as they have - this may not in fact be each of them personally attacking you, but instead it might be that your estimation of notability is off - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm happy enough with my "win percentage", if that's what you are talking about (77.5% of the time I either vote with the majority or there is no consensus). Sometimes the guidelines themselves are the problem and my consistent participation and commenting on repeating issues is, slowly, changing some things for the better and generating useful debate on others (there is a good discussion about beauty pageant articles, for example). I get a few wrong, and I can live with that, a few other things I just don't comment on because I've decided they aren't worth the fight, but the point is that civility matters. It is also important to not only address the systemic bias problem on Wikipedia, which is huge but also we need to address what one user referred to as "editor bias" —the "I've never heard of it or I think it's stupid, so it's not notable" problem. Bottom line? The people who personally attack me for my assessments and in doing so get so livid and spittle-frothing-angry that they cross the line of civility have no credibility with me. I treat their remarks as the temper tantrums that they are. Stay civil, and I'll win a few and I lose a few. But I'm often enough in the right to keep plugging away at it. Montanabw(talk) 03:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Given that what I mostly see is you claiming negative assessments of your provided sources are personal attacks, the spittle appears to be flying in the other direction - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, using personalized language like "blind dump" and "lazy" is a personal attack. Anyone can critique the sources without getting personal about it. Montanabw(talk) 07:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There's an easy way to avoid increasingly strong criticism from an increasing number of directions—stop doing what you've been told over and over again is unacceptable. —swpbT 20:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                      • For the record, I appreciate montanabw's source listings. Also, I find swpb's easy dismissal of worldcat results to be very strange.  The Steve  19:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Worldcat lists essentially every book ever published—you know that, right? A listing in Worldcat has never been considered evidence of notability, by anyone. The flaws with the rest of Montana's sources are thoroughly documented; what's strange is how you could see fit to defend any of it at all. —swpbT 13:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                          • No, not even close. Worldcat only lists books held by libraries. As in, bought and curated by librarians. As in, considered worthwhile reading by libraries. Its a small fraction of all books published. You didn't know that, obviously. As to your other point, see here...  The Steve  07:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                            • 100% wrong. The Library of Congress, just for one, holds or catalogs, exactly as I said, "essentially every book ever published". Not some small fraction, but nearly every single modern one. That's supposed to support a case for GNG? Give us all a break. BTW, I'm traveling this weekend, so it's unlikely I'll be able to see or respond to anything else here. Luckily, there's no reason to worry about which way this AfD is going. —swpbT 13:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                                • "the Library does not retain all of these works..." ..."the Library of Congress retains copies of every publication in the English language that is deemed significant" (emphasis mine). The LoC rejects 1 of every 5 items that are submitted to it, and those are mostly US publications. That means it only holds 80% of things sent to it Plenty of books published in the US never receive an LCC. Even if we're generous and assume that the LoC holds 66% of all works published in the US, their foreign holdings are far smaller, percentage-wise. I seriously doubt they hold even 20% of all books published in any given year. And again, Worldcat only shows holdings, not everything given an LCC.  The Steve  06:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • Let's put the goal posts back where they belong—you can't say with a straight face that world cat is enough to meet GNG, because it isn't, by 1000 miles. —swpbT 01:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • Not in this case. However, DGG (a librarian) has used worldcat holdings as his AFD reasoning many times, and I generally agree with his analyses, both keep and delete. Ergo, my confusion over your dismissal of those results. Worldcat results should be seriously considered, even if you aren't using them as your sole measurement.  The Steve  00:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 — Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —swpbT 13:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DEL7 (although a weak one). I looked through a bunch of databases but was unable to find coverage in reliable sources. While the subject has created some really nice fairy art, it is hard to find what is the impact - any awards/museum collections. Because of the paucity of information in reliable secondary sources, I am going for a delete. Per WP:WHYN there is simply not enough information available on which to base an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability - fails WP:GNG, and I can't see that any alternative basis for notability applies. Thparkth (talk) 21:14, 18 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season of mischief

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

Initially tagged for speedy deletion, and contested. However no substantive change since then. This article is about a publicity campaign for a particular beer by a small brewing company. It has been run during halloween for the last few years but has no significant coverage. The beer itself doesn't have a standalone article so surely a promotional campaign FOR the beer doesn't deserve a standalone article. It perhaps deserves a mention in Wychwood Brewery#Hobgoblin and IF that section becomes large then COULD be broken out to a standalone article eventually, if reliable sources can be found. Wittylama 08:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 15 October 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) –Davey2010Talk 01:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magna Carta College

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

There is no credible evidence that such an organization actually existed. All there seems to be is a dead web domain and one entry in a Home Office report that the organization was trusted with foreign students. Mootros (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See this page which said (in 2010) "The University of Wales is pleased to congratulate one of its collaborative centres, The Magna Carta College (MCC), on having held its first ever graduation ceremony... The University of Wales has been validating the MCC’s MBA scheme since 2007". AllyD (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It looks like it is now defunct but I think there is enough evidence that it was a legitimate college accredited by University of Wales. GeneralBelly (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:42, 13 October 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 no consensus. There are good arguments made on both sides for the type of article that is often quite difficult to deal with; for this reason I cannot find a consensus to delete even though numerically there are slightly more comments for that outcome. Black Kite (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Movebubble

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

There are several concerns here such as 1 is that this was clearly a paid article considering the history which only contained 2 SPAs in the entire history, and then the entire article simply focused with what there is to advertise about the company, the listed sources are still in fact trivial and unconvincing, since they also simply consist of the company's own information, such as the ThisisMoney which contains company-supplied information, from start to finish, from A to Z, since a large amount of, first of all, is interviewed information and then the other part is simply what the company business wants to say, such as what the company's own suggestions are about business; now, we could say the company was "featured", "honored", etc. having their information included, but this in fact can also suggest churnalism and-or paid PR, and then the other links I had found in my own searches, such as the TechCrunch, which is PR from start to finish since it largely only focuses with what the company would say about, and it's clear from the article style, since it's not something a journalist or news source would actually publish since it's so flashy.

Now, I'll note that I executed several searches before this, and I once again searched multiple times, at BBC, The Guardian, Forbes and WallStreetJournal but I only ever found articles, 1 at TheGuardian and then another at Forbes, but all of them are clearly trivial and PR, especially the Forbes one since it lists it was submitted by a "special contributor", which essentially actually means someone who was not part of the Forbes staff and this is because it was actually a freelance journalist, meaning it was a honeypot area for paid PR and that's expected since the entire article is paid PR, focusing again only with what the company would said itself, and what's worse is that the company itself is only ever actually mentioned once, that's not substantial and it's sure as hell not convincing. I'll also note this was speedy deleted twice before including as advertising, so that's certainly something that should've been kept to mind when accepting at AfC, and it's something that should especially kept to mind if it's noticeable of having PR campaign intentions.
Now, although The Telegraph article has the claim that they're the first peer-to-peer marketplace, this is still quite outweighed given the concerns I have listed here, therefore it still seems too soon; it's also happened before here at AfD that an article has a significant claim but, if it's still advertising and PR, that is not a compromisable situatiation, and we would essentially be succumbing to accepting said advertising and PR. I'll note this was actually speedy deleted twice before, SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. Of note is that the Forbes, The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal sources mentioned in the nomination are not in the article at all. North America1000 05:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Keep per sources found by Northamerica1000. Additional sources here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Edited the article to make it sound less promotional. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:608C:C2F8:2526:C3A4 (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All of those sources still fit with exactly what I said above, it only focuses with triviality which includes listing what the own company says, and none of that substantial. One of the links listed then actually says "To make moving home easy!" and another "to make hone viewing easy from the desk!" (all contents still never go apart from company-supplied information and PR, making it non-independent and unconvincing) which is clear PR, it's helps to actually see what the concerns are of listed links like the ones above before actually staying that they establish notability, because they are certainly not.
As it is, I have explicitly explained this article was solely started as a PR campaign and that is enough said there, especially then contributing to the fact all supplied sources were only ever PR, and that certainly is not surprising considering that's exactly the company's activities and what's being ponied as "news" sources above, therefore Copy-editing advertising is not meaningful if it's basically adding cosmetics to an unimproved article. Once we ridiculously started accepting such advertisements for such trivialness of "having sources" is when we're completely damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 08:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- typical "corporate spam" on a minor private company. No indications of notability or significance and the sources listed above are not convincing. If kept, the article would need to be reduced to a couple of sentences, as the content is mostly fluff and / or trivia. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we should judge current state of that article, not its origins. Taking your proposal as rule, we should delete nearly all articles about companies. As of this article in question, I will wait for more comments before my own judgement (but I´m close to keep now). Pavlor (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having most company articles start as spam is not a reason to encourage spam, that's a frankly boggling statement. It's a highly relevant factor at AFD in my experience - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. essentially per K.e.coffman ; his suggestion is exactly right--we should delete all articles on companies or anything else written by promotional editors. It would undoubtedly narrow down our coverage perhaps more than it should, but the entire principle of WP is that it is written by volunteers without a COI. The major companies, like the major people in many lines of work, will be written by volunteers. The otherscan rely on the web for their publicity. Assisting those who want to do promotion is corrupting the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:SwisterTwister, can you please use paragraphs? Your walls of text give me a headache...  Sandstein  11:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IAR and WP:NOTPROMO. It is pretty obvious that the article was written with the intent to promote the company. A visibility on a site like Wikipedia helps companies a lot. In addition this takes advantage of Wikipedia's general reputation for reliability. We cannot encourage such behaviour. "Keeping" articles like these encourages a greater tide of badly written promotional articles, which then have to be fixed by volunteer editors. This WP:BOGOF editing is bad for the encyclopaedia and should not be encouraged. Regardless of sources (which are pretty weak btw), I say to IAR and delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I restored the article content for now. It is typically poor form to strip down an article and its sources to the point of qualifying it for A7 deletion, particularly while it is being discussed at AfD. Also, regarding the latter, some users base notability assessments upon the state of sources within an article, rather than the overall availability of sources. North America1000 15:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies on that. Thanks for pointing out this issue. I'm alright with your reverting my edits, which anyway weren't intended to push the article towards A7. Thanks. Lourdes 15:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually one of the problems with poorly written promotional content. Strip it down, it become A7 eligible. Keep the promotional content during the AFD and it is promotional content eligible for WP:NOTPROMO. Just to clarify Lourdes, there is nothing "poor form" in removing promotional unsourced content. It is a much better thing to do rather than add back unsourced promotional content which is pretty much against our content policies. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:IAR doesn't perhaps apply. (Of course, NOTPROMO is appropriate). If the issue is that there are reliable sources available confirming the notability of the corporation but the current state of the article is promotional in nature (and in all probability written by PR personnel), then why don't we stubify the article to a line or two and nuke the rest? (and David Gerard, the linkdump usage is hylarius; I am going to use it on someone) Lourdes 10:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I provided sources that provide coverage about the company for Wikipedia's users to consider. It was not a "link dump", which comes across as assumptive that the content of the sources were not considered. I don't find this humorous at all; rather, it comes across as potential bad faith toward good faith contributors. Source content was entirely considered prior to my post. North America1000 11:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that NA. I saw the word and liked it, because I want to paste it on the face of another specific editor soon enough (of course, never intended for you) :) Just chill and take it jovially. You do outstanding work all around and especially here at Afd, which even David knows. Lourdes 11:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh he won't mind it. He's a good friend and I'm going to use it only in humor with him. Convivial is the tenor of the month :) Come on NA, you're the last editor here I would be debating with. Lourdes 11:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had replied to this on my talk but didn't notice it was pasted here as well. I do not see why removing a bunch of links is "extremely poor form, and calls into question the validity of this AFD" and neither do I get the reasoning behind "If such actions are repeated here, or in other AFD discussions, then administrator intervention is highly suggested". I removed the sources because Wikipedia is not a link farm. My very next edit was to move the links to the talk page. Whoever wants to improve it could still find those on the talk page. AfD or not, it doesn't give an excuse to dump a bunch of links on the article. If they can be inserted as refs, do that. Otherwise put them on the talk page and let someone else incorporate it. I find it a lot more weird that unsourced promo stuff is added back to the article with rationales like Sorry, but in the process you qualified the article for WP:A7 deletion, as a user noted at the AfD discussion, and is a proponent of. A new editor is probably gonna learn from it and repeat stuff like this. Just a couple of days ago I had a hard time trying to convince a new user User:Xboxmanwar that citations are necessary. It is stuff like this that encourages newer editors to think that it is OK to add back promo content or let re-add unsourced stuff. They could simply point to edits like these (made by experienced users who are "supposed to lead by example") and justify their behaviour. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lemongirl942, calm down and carry on. You are ordinarily absolutely composed and despite your relatively fresh tenure at Wikipedia, are quite a good example at Afd discussions. I find your response here angry and unnecessary. What 1Wiki... has mentioned is a non-starter. There's no admin action required or called for; your edits are absolutely competent and with diligence. At the same time, in your anger, I suspect you are throwing off missiles at other editors who also are attempting a good faith contribution to the article. There's no need for that. Both NA and you are great at what you're doing. I might not agree with your massive deletionist tendency at Afds (in the sense that I have yet to find a keep !vote from you), but that is your editorial choice and nothing for anyone to complain about. Like I said, calm down and carry on. Comments like 1Wiki's don't require response. Lourdes 12:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE: non-notable start-up that in RS has received passing mention only, except in the subject's own literature. Muffled Pocketed 08:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) and 2602:306:3A29:9B90:608C:C2F8:2526:C3A4 (talk · contribs). Movebubble has received significant coverage in This is Money, The Telegraph, TechCrunch, CNBC, and The Sunday Times.

    The coverage spans nearly two years (January 4, 2014 to December 7, 2015), so Movebubble has received persistent coverage. Movebubble has received significant coverage in national sources in the United Kingdom (This is Money, The Telegraph, and The Sunday Times) and in the United States (CNBC and TechCrunch), demonstrating it has received international coverage.

    Here is the current version of the article:

    Movebubble is a company and property rental mobile app that helps renters find a property.[1][2] The start-up company was founded in 2014 by Aidan Rushby,[3] Tony Edwards, and Logan Hall with headquarters based in London, England. The company is privately owned.[4] Movebubble was created as a result of the founders' negative experiences with renting a property.[5]

    The app enables renters to view property, book viewings, and give feedback on property viewings they've attended.[6] The app uses data from its users to suggest areas and properties to renters, and includes an analysis of property relevance relative to what users are seeking.[7]

    History

    After meeting in 2010 whilst doing an MBA at the University of the West of England, Aidan Rushby, Tony Edwards and Logan Hall formed the concept for Movebubble.[8]

    Funding

    In 2016, the company raised a $1.6 million funding round, with total investment of $3.4 million. Investors include Adam Williams (former Spotify MD), Richard Leigh (co-founder and MD of London and Capital), and Robert Stiff.[9]

    This is neutrally written. It does not violate WP:NOTADVERTISING, so deletion per WP:IAR would not "preven[t] [editors] from from improving or maintaining Wikipedia".

    Cunard (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is a blatant advertisment as the Delete comments have established above and the information listed above is simply emphasizing in the blatancy of literally going to specifics about what the company not only knows, but wants to advertise about itself, which is the amount of money it holds for its clients and investors, how it can be serviced and used, where to contact them of their locations and other company information. None of that establishes convincing for notability or substance, because it's only suitable for their own website, which is exactly what the current article is. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re: "improving the article through copy editing: This does not work when the entity is non-notable. The content is essentially fluff and / or about company's aspirations and funding. If such content is removed, there would be nothing there, and wikipedia is not a catalog of unremarkable tech companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article (as recently re-written) meets WP:N and isn't overly promotional (or really promotional at all). Hobit (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of it establishes any actual notability either literally considering it's only now focusing with the general information to advertise about the company and its funding, followed by sources literally republishing the company's own words about its said funding, business plans and other such information; none of that establishes notability, especially not when such blatant sources listed have been and still are notorious for republishing PR. This can be emphasized by the sheer and literal fact every single source listed is only actually focusing with said funding and business plans, therefore that's not independent and thus it's also not convincing. WP:N be damned if it means Wikipedia will not accept an advertisement, along with considerations of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • repeat after me: "sources are notability in the context of Wikipedia". That was pretty much the grand compromise. Otherwise we're just in "IDONTLIKEIT vs ILIKEIT". The company has reasonable coverage that meets WP:N. We aren't here to judge the media or judge what people write about. Rather we are here to build an encyclopedia. We can write a reasonable (if short) article about this company based on reliable sources. So we should. Or at least we shouldn't complain when others do that work. Hobit (talk) 15:12, 6 November 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Punches, Kicks, Trenches & Swords

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

Non-notable single by low-profile indie band that fails WP:NSONG on every level. See also Holes (Pint Shot Riot song). KaisaL (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing for the substance needed for a confirmed separate article with independent notability, and there's nothing to suggest anything otherwise since the notability for these subjects is firm. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:06, 21 October 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. MBisanz talk 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holes (Pint Shot Riot song)

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

Non-notable single by low-profile indie band that fails WP:NSONG on every level. The only claim it makes is charting on the UK Indie Chart, but that's an industry listing that doesn't meet our criteria (and it made it nowhere near to the actual singles chart). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punches, Kicks, Trenches & Swords. KaisaL (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 11 October 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. MBisanz talk 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charming Liars

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

Following a google search, there is no apparent indication of notability. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I think this is WP:TOOSOON. The additional sources in the various South American Rolling Stone editions, do show a claim of significance. But they are either interviews in context of a tour/album release or a very brief piece about a music video. Usually for a notable band, there is solid secondary coverage. That is missing here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:01, 2 November 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Menna van Praag

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

Self-published author with minimal secondary coverage. Blackguard 06:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 9 October 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  13:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Cracroft Ash

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

No reliable sources found for this biographical article. The article on his son, Michael Edward Ash, has sources added by Arxiloxos and was deprodded, but the father should be considered separately as notability is not inherited. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've been able to find very little on line that's about Wilfred individually, but the company he co-founded, Gilbert-Ash, appears to be probably notable based on the extensive coverage of its activities in sources like the Belfast Telegraph and others visible in a HighBeam search. The content of this article would be relevant and usable in an article about the company (assuming it can be properly sourced). --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:45, 15 October 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 Hillfields, Bristol. The one "keep" makes no policy-based argument.  Sandstein  11:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Park, Bristol

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

Chester Park is not a recognised area of Bristol, it has no significance and does not warrant such a lengthy page. Trunky (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How long are pages limited to? How many words per inhabitant are geographical areas restricted to, lest WP run out of server space?
This is not a major area of Bristol. It is a subdivision smaller than an electoral ward. Yet it is a real place, a long-established and well-defined place. There are at least two schools here calling themselves "Chester Park". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hillfields, Bristol, the ward that it's in. The few verifiable scraps could be selective paste merged if anyone wishes. I can find no significant coverage of this small 19th century housing development in online sources; Google Maps shows the neighbourhood formed by "Chester Park Road, Berkeley Road, Argyle Road and Charlton Road" is a total of 4 or 5 small blocks of houses, which I do not believe is likely by itself to have ever been the subject significant coverage in any WP:reliable sources, online or offline. (Note to any further contributors to this AfD: Confusingly, Chester Park (as opposed to Chester Park Road) is a street over a mile away and so clearly not part of the neighbourhood as described in the article). Qwfp (talk) 09:25, 15 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anila Ali

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person with very little substantive or properly sourced evidence of notability. Nothing claimed here constitutes an actual claim of notability: being a candidate for election to the state assembly or to her hometown city council does not pass WP:NPOL; writing books is not a notability freebie if your source for that is the publication details of the books rather than RS coverage about the books; being a delegate to a political party convention does not make a person notable; and on and so forth. And of the 19 sources here, only one of them is actually a real piece of reliable source coverage about her, and it's local coverage in the context of starting a Facebook group. All of the other 18 references are DOA for one reason or another: references #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 18 and 19 are primary sources that cannot support notability at all; #7, 9, 10 and 13 are just letters to the editor in the newspaper; #11 and 12 just glancingly mention her name as a convention delegate; #16 just briefly quotes her giving soundbite in an article that isn't about her; and #15 and 17 are dead links whose content is unverifiable. And there are a lot of claims in here that remain entirely unsourced, as well. As always, Wikipedia is not a free campaign brochure platform for aspiring politicians -- but nothing here is sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG or to play the "preexisting notability for other things before running for office" card. Bearcat (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article needs some refinements and better laid out sources here and there etc. Still Anila Ali is notable for various things. She is also the founder of the American Muslim Women’s Empowerment Council, an organization which works to have women from Muslim backgrounds placed into positions within the law-enforcement and justice systems. That's just a small slice from the pie of this Irvine, California resident. Her involvement in various organizations is not only commendable, she is notable for this as well. She is I believe the author of two published books. Karl Twist (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being the founder of an organization that doesn't even have a Wikipedia article is not a notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about that fact (and even if the organization did have an article, per WP:NOTINHERITED that fact still wouldn't give her an automatic notability freebie if the sourcing about her was still as bad as what's been shown here.) Writing books is not a notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about that fact. As I've already explained, there's only one source present in this article that counts as a reliable one at all, and it's a local news article about her starting a Facebook group. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A candidate in a city council election would be expected to garner coverage in her local media. Covering local politics is local media's job, so all candidates for city council seats always garner local coverage — and accordingly, such coverage is routine and does not confer passage of WP:GNG for the purposes of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The OC Register link has already been addressed above; it's covering her only in the context of launching a Facebook group, which is not an encyclopedic claim of notability. India West is a local community newspaper covering her announcement of her city council candidacy, which is not an encyclopedic claim of notability. And the Clarion Project is not media, but an advocacy group — so content it publishes to its website does not count toward passage of GNG at all. When you can start showing coverage in The New York Times or the Washington Post (and that means coverage about her in the news section, not letters she wrote to the editors), then GNG will come into play — but the media coverage that's been shown here is local and routine, not GNG-passing. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does not even contain the word 'local'. WP:ROUTINE is part of Wikipedia:Notability (events), while this is the biography of a person who is notable for more than just her role in one event, whether that event is an election or the launching or a Facebook page—hang on, that's two events for a start—I don't see how you can argue that the coverage is only in the context of an election on the one hand, while also dismissing another source for covering her in the context of the launch of a Facebook page, i.e. something entirely different. In any case, India-West is no more 'local' than the Los Angeles Times, while the Orange County Register has a daily circulation of over 250,000 and is 'local' to Orange County, California, the sixth-most populous county in the US with a population of over 3 million, more than many countries. Qwfp (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The election is an event, so localized coverage of it does fall under WP:ROUTINE — and candidates involved in it do not inherit notability from the event. If localized coverage of local elections in local media that would be expected to be covering that election counted toward meeting WP:GNG in and of itself, then we would have to keep an article about every single candidate in any election at all — but our notability standards for political candidates are purposely designed to keep Wikipedia from devolving into a public relations repository of campaign brochures, by limiting the notability of political candidates to those who can be shown as significantly more notable than the norm (i.e. by already having preexisting notability for other things, or by generating far more than the merely expected level of campaign coverage.)
But starting a Facebook group does not satisfy either of those conditions — it doesn't show preexisting notability, because it's not a notability-conferring event at all, and the rule is not that a candidate gets over the "more notable than the norm for a candidate" hump the moment you can show that one piece of media coverage has existed about her outside of the election context. The "preexisting notability" claim has to fully satisfy a Wikipedia inclusion criterion all by itself, such that the article could still have existed on that basis even if the person hadn't run as an election candidate at all — but one piece of media coverage about starting a Facebook group would not have gotten her into Wikipedia by itself, because the claim itself passes none of Wikipedia's SNGs and the depth of coverage doesn't satisfy GNG.
And it doesn't matter how big a newspaper's local coverage area happens to be, either — if a class of topic is subject to the "more than just local coverage" test, as unelected candidates for office are, then what matters is not the size of a media outlet's distribution or circulation range, but its physical location in relation to the topic and her notability claim. Even The Los Angeles Times or The New York Times could not singlehandedly GNG an unelected city council candidate in their own local coverage areas just because they're more widely read than the Sandusky Register or the Bozeman Daily Chronicle — the context in which that coverage is being given still has a bearing on whether it assists notability or not. Even in New York City, an unelected candidate for New York City Council still wouldn't get an automatic GNG pass just because the routine local election coverage of that election happened to be in The New York Times, because the claim itself isn't one that satisfies our inclusion rules. If the election-related coverage is in a media outlet that would be routinely expected to cover that election, because the election is taking place in that media outlet's own primary local coverage area, then that coverage still does not go toward GNG regardless of whether the media outlet has a daily circulation of 250,000, 30 million or just ten — the place from which the coverage is originating has to be geographically non-local before it can speak to "more notable than usual for a city council candidate", and a newspaper to which that city council election is local news does not get a special dispensation just because it happens to have a larger local readership than other newspapers and/or some non-local readership too. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it was hard to see through the flurry of promotionality on the article, so I gave a go at de-puffing it. I'm on the fence about this AFD. I feel like I've never seen so much WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE of someone without very much corresponding WP:SIGCOV. She certainly gets mentioned a lot, but she doesn't seem to be the focus of much coverage. The OC Register piece is good, but it's local, and I can't find a second piece of equal value. Right now I'm leaning delete, but I'll watch this page to see how the discussion evolves. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG met how, exactly, if all we have for GNGable sourcing is one local newspaper article about her starting a Facebook group? Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GNG met how, exactly, if all we have for GNGable sourcing is one local newspaper article about her starting a Facebook group? Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ali is good at PR and certainly very busy supporting good causes but that doesn't make her notable just yet. Had a go at removing the worst puffery but boy, there's a lot. Sources don't always support what they are supposed to support either. (I'm very much reminded of the Mandy Sanghera article, also up for deletion, that had very similar problems). Yintan  09:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have had a look at the usual places that we look and there is enough to satisfy the notability aspect of this person to be in Wikipedia. So I stand by my Keep vote! In saying that, there are much better references that can be used. So I ask that the creator of this article please look around for better refs, I will do a couple but I'm too busy to be bogged down here. So over to the creator and contributor. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, you cannot just assert that sufficient sourcing exists to get her over GNG. You have to demonstrate that sufficient sourcing exists to get her over GNG, by actually showing the actual results of your work. Bearcat (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I commented above, but had not !voted yet. Although I was leaning delete, I was open to reliable sources being brought forward in this discussion to establish notability. That has not happened, so I think the article should be deleted. We need WP:SIGCOV, and what we have is a large collection of passing and trivial mentions. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  www.ocregister.com/articles/muslim-649192-muslims-ali.html is an in-depth article, as is the IndiaWest article.  There seems to be a concern that this topic is running for office in November of this year, so the article should be deleted, but the article was created in April 2014.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IndiaWest article doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Apart from being spammy and advertising itself as the "Best Indian newspaper in print and online", I don't see any evidence of a journalistic oversight. For all purpose that is a WP:SPS and cannot be used for GNG. The other source is about the interview in context of a Facebook page which we already looked at. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reviewed your assertions and find them to be submitted without relevant evidence, i.e., these are proofs by assertion.  Nor are you an expert.  The India West article has a byline of "India West Staff".  The generalized aspect of the aspersions you have cast is dismissed by reading our article, India West.  I am aware that The Orange County Register has been declared a reliable source at the reliable sources noticeboard.  I have searched for the word "interview" above, and your claim that the OC Register piece is an "interview" is without precedent in this discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The generalized aspect of the aspersions you have cast is dismissed by reading our article, India West. Our article is entirely sourced to India West's website and not to any reliable secondary third-party sources. As for the byline, most CMS (used by these websites) have a default byline which is automatically inserted. I am not an expert but I do have prior experience in dealing with media and promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again: regardless of any quibbles about whether India West is a reliable source or not, it's a local media outlet in her own local area, which is covering her only in the context of announcing her candidacy for a city council seat. This is the kind of election coverage that is routinely expected to exist — all candidates in all elections always get some — so it does not assist GNG. And the OC Register, again, is also a local paper, covering her only in the context of starting a Facebook group, which again is not a noteworthy achievement that gets somebody into an encyclopedia (since nothing stops anybody from starting a Facebook group and then maybe getting a human interest piece in the local newspaper for it.) GNG is not magically passed the moment two pieces of media coverage exist, without regard to the context in which that coverage came to exist — the coverage still has to be about her doing something that would constitute a reason why she might belong in an encyclopedia. If two pieces of media coverage were automatically enough to pass GNG regardless of what that coverage were being given for, then we would have to keep an article about every single person who ever became president of the parent-teacher association at her kids' elementary school. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG doesn't exclude "local" sources, rather that is an element found in WP:CORPORATION.  This topic is not a corporation. 

    GNG doesn't discount evidence "expected" to exist; rather, it states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

    GNG doesn't exclude "routine" coverage. 

    GNG does not require that there be "reasons" for a topic to have an encyclopedia article.  WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason local sources are not used for GNG is because of our policy WP:NOT. As someone said, "If we used my small town newspaper for GNG purposes my dog would be notable for having chewed up all the gardens in the neighborhood every year.". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD most certainly does have a standing consensus that purely local coverage in a purely local-interest context, such as announcing one's candidacy for a city council seat, does not assist passage of GNG. If it did, we would have to keep articles about presidents of PTAs, school board trustees, teenagers who had human interest pieces written about them in the local Pennysaver because they tried out for their high school football team despite having only nine toes, librarians, still-unsigned and non-recording winners of local "battle of the bands" competitions, and the woman a mile down the road from my parents who found a pig in her yard one morning. An article does not become earned until the coverage demonstrates a substantive reason why her notability has expanded significantly beyond the purely local — which "candidate for a city council seat" and "started a Facebook group" do not. GNG is not automatically passed the moment any coverage exists at all — passage of GNG most certainly does depend on variables like context, volume and geographic range. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO; the article has no less than eight (8) photos with various dignitaries, such as "Anila Ali with President Clinton and Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom" etc. Only a person close to the subject would have stuffed the article with so much puffery. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a platform for self-promotion. Even if the subject were notable (of which I'm not convinced), TNT would have applied as the article would need to be completely rewritten. If a volunteer editor comes along and wants to create an NPOV article, all the power to the. But there's not need to keep promotionalism in the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 20 October 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.




Categories

England Proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/England&oldid=745372929"