Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 24

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz talk 02:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bourguignon

Thomas Bourguignon (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)

Likely an autobiography, or written by someone with a COI. Article has 11 references, 8 references are to articles by the subject. The remaining three ar the subject's website, the website of the owner of his production company and a dead link. Mduvekot (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taciana Davidson

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

This entrepreneur fails WP:NBIO. No substantial coverage in reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. As G11 by RHaworth Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastman auto and power - Automotive

Eastman auto and power - Automotive (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)

Exclusively sourced to primary sources (the company's own website). A search per WP:BEFORE yielded 4 result, 3 of those CRISIL ratings from Reuters. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Mduvekot (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising, with language such as: "Eastman also have extensive high-end laboratories and test facilities to ensure quality products are supplied!" No sources listed apart from the org's own web site. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The article was expanded so WP:2DABS no longer applied, but there was no further substantial comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Grand Prix (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation not required per WP:2DABS. Primary topic (Spanish Grand Prix) has hatnote to only other use (Spanish motorcycle Grand Prix). De-PRODded by User:Patar knight with comment "since both of these Grand Prixs occur yearly, it's reasonable for someone to expect to find a list of Grand Prixs at this title". Whilst it is true that both of these Grand Prixs occur yearly, that is not a reason to have an unrequired, orphan, disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedily) delete per nom. Straightforward case of 2DABS, with a clearcut primary topic. Torturously circuitous to have a hatnote in Spanish Grand Prix to the dab page when one to the motorcycle version would save time. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People who search for one of the two Spanish grand prixs will know enough about Grand Prix events to know that they are annual and that each annual iteration can reasonably just be called the "Spanish Grand Prix". We don't have an articles for each iteration of either Grand Prix, but readers shouldn't be expected to be familiar with what articles exist and don't exist on Wikipedia. (The tables were misleading, and it turns out we do have articles on most iterations of both Grand Prixs, which makes the DAB even more justified. 05:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)) This search would also conserve data for users who want to find the motorcycle Grand Prix, which does not show up when merely searching "Spanish Grand Prix" via the search box. WP:2DABS does not proscribe all 2DAB pages, and is only a guideline. It also does not say anything about this scenario, where a DAB page with two entries exists but is not linked from the primary topic's article, which already has a hatnote to the secondary meaning. Overall, it seems useful at least in this scenario to have a DAB page, even if unlinked. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)(edited 03:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick head count at the most recent discussion on 2DABs at WT:DAB ended up, judging from a quick count with 19-14 in support of keeping at least some 2DABs with primary topics. Some of the oppose !votes (at least 2) also opposed on the basis that not all 2DABs with a primary topic were useful while admitting that some were, so a blanket allowance was not their prefered choice. And if I had to !vote now, would switch to the support column. So what the consensus is for deleting 2DABs with a primary topic is at best unclear, possibly in favour of keeping some of them. At the very least, "per 2DABs" should not be the sole reason for deleting this page and similar pages. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: that discussion was not closed (and 19-14 feels more like no consensus, ie keep the status quo). A more recent discussion and test case was at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco de Ponce (disambiguation). Deleting WP:2DABS pages is entirely within WP guidance, and this one is nothing special. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the oppose !votes in more depth, four !votes explicitly support keeping 2DABs if they have useful elements besides the main entries (a position also taken by many of the support !votes), one !vote supports that implicitly, and several others seem primarily motivated by an objection against deleting useless 2DABs. So counting my own switched !vote, that seems like at least a 25-8 consensus in keeping 2DABs if they have other useful elements. This is the case here, since I've added the figure skating event with a similar name to a see also section, and a links to the category that quickly gets readers to the individual F1 and motorcycle events as an indented bullet under the main entry as an alternative to adding every single Spanish Grand Prix article onto the DAB.
Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) only listed the bank and its former HQ building. Because of the geographic constraints and the fact that it's a foreign language, proper noun, there were no other pages that could plausibly be added as an entry or in a "See also" section. It's an extreme case that's not representative of the utility of most 2DABs. Here, there's the two events, each individual event which could all be valid entries, the figure skating event in the "See also", and potential expansion via other Spanish grand prix events (e.g. [1] [2]). One can support deleting Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) as a complete, unexpandable, and unlikely to be searched for 2DAB, while also believing that a 2DAB page like this one is useful. No one is arguing that the DAB policy disallows deleting 2DABs. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two more entries have been added, so WP:2DABS no longer applies. Relisting to see if those who argued to delete will still argue to delete now that it has the additional entries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz talk 02:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OHM (cryptocurrency)

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

One of literally hundreds of bitcoin wannabes; sourced almost exclusively to its own publications; long history of spammer and COI edits, although that's not a killer. Orange Mike | Talk 21:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to See You Again. (non-admin closure) — Zawl 12:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See You Again (music video)

See You Again (music video) (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 notability aside from the song. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellyman

Ellyman (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 can't seem to find any reliable sources supporting this article. If you have something on the subject that meets RS, please add to the article, if not, admin Delete. Stanleytux (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specdo

Specdo (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 singer. Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. Stanleytux (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Zawl 13:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Ansari

Sarah Ansari (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 really much in terms of significant and in-depth, independent coverage of subject from reliable sources. Nothing in article, nothing found on a web search to satisfy GNG Rayman60 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Sierra

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

The subject never played in a fully professional league, thus fails WP:NFOOTY. It has not been shown that he passes WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has played professional in Colombian league added external link to his old team profile. Therefore, terminating deletion tag will be safe. I will encourage you to do research before marking page for deletion. Wasn't finished adding source. Literally took you 1 min before I created page to mark a deletion tag. Acorona619 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Acorona619:, Colombian Categoria Primera B is not fully professional, and he did not play a single match in the Mexican league.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kartikeya Sharma

Kartikeya Sharma (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 appear to meet notability criteria – lacks in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Sources are all either trivial mentions or coverage by publications affiliated with the article subject. The most in-depth piece is written in a highly promotional tone and is published by an outlet owned by Sharma himself. Citobun (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Zawl 17:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puffin Cultural Forum

Puffin Cultural Forum (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 notability. The main source for this article is New Jersey Stage which is a simple platform for press releases and whats on. As it states on its about us page "We encourage organizations to send us press releases and add their events to our calendar." Domdeparis (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Zawl 17:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DWFritz Automation

DWFritz Automation (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)

Company excluded by both points of WP:N, it both does not meet the sourcing requirements and it is excluded as promotion per WP:NOT. In terms of sourcing, the only coverage that exists is either primary source based in the local business press or it is simply press releases and press release reprints. Both of those are excluded by WP:SPIP and WP:ORGIND from counting towards notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Edwards (cricketer)

Mickey Edwards (cricketer) (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. The player has not taken part in a first-class cricket match and so fails WP:CRIN, lacking the required notability for an article. Jack | talk page 15:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Withdrawing the nomination because he now meets terms of WP:CRIN having played in a senior match. Jack | talk page 15:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is a reasonable possibility he will make his debut while this discussion is in progress. StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His playing for Australia in that unusual fashion has resulted in multiple articles dedicated to him. Goes beyond a blp1e situation due to his maintained profile as part of the NSW squad. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is famous in Australia on social media and is regarded as a 'cult hero' due to his subfielding for Australia. I saw this, even if beside the normal criteria, as a suitable reason to create the page.

aussiespinnersfanpage (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackJack: - would you like to withdraw the nom now he's made his debut? Or, if you prefer, we settle this like real cricketers men, with a good old-fashioned fight in the small hours outside a nightclub :D Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: Ha, ha! It's always been the case with cricket that a brawl is never very far away. Yes, I will withdraw the nom. I suppose he'll end up playing for Australia in a few months. All the best. Jack | talk page 15:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kovner

Joseph Kovner (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 indication in the article that the subject is more notable than any other lawyer who worked for the US federal government (and there are thousands). With the exception of an obit, none of the sources are actually about Kovner--they're all about someone else and mention him in passing. agtx 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 16:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 16:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 16:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Did the nominator for deletion read the longer, preceding portion on Kovner? What about all his work for the Congress of Industrial Organizations as first-choice assistant general counsel under the highly controversial Lee Pressman? Kovner provided an important report on the Little Steel Strike and on the National Labor Relations Board, which the CIO disregarded. Kovner and Smith fought with Pressman over his pro-Soviet choices for CIO policies; eventually, both Kovner and Smith abandoned Pressman. Kovner then left the CIO – in which light, yes, the rest of his career was less notable – but that would be to mis-read or miss out on the notability of his years in the CIO (1937–1953). Delete-happy folk, please read – and, if you don't know the other players mentioned, use those handy Wiki-links and read about them, too. This is what Wikipedia is all about: in this case of American Labor and Unions in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, one book or one article might mention Kovner in passing, but here you get to read an aggregation that would otherwise take ages to put together – and it helps explain important details of what was happening (in this case, big issues facing the CIO and internal machinations of the CIO. What's not notable about that? (What else is an open-source encyclopedia for, other than to inform and save people time?) --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, the mudslinging ("delete-happy") isn't necessary. Let's focus on issues. Your argument for keeping this article sounds exactly like WP:SYNTH. Contrary to your unfounded accusation, I did read the entire article, including the part about the CIO. I don't think that an assistant general counsel at that organization is notable absent significant coverage in reliable sources. Could he be mentioned in the articles on the CIO or on Pressman? Sure. Is he sufficiently notable in his own right for a Wikipedia page? You haven't cited sources—either in the article or in your argument above—suggesting that he is. agtx 23:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ample sourcing - mainly on his post-government career. Some are in-depth - e.g. [4]. Seems he was also up before House Un-American Activities Committee. His Labor and ACLU work seem to be quite significant in a google-books run-down.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Icewhiz: Your link just looks like a citation to two memos he wrote. Is there something more detailed that Google Books isn't showing me? Sometimes bigger snippets from books are viewable outside the US (where I am), so I might not be able to see what's there. agtx 17:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can (sometimes, if you are not easily geolocated) BTW fool google by choosing a different country's TLD suffix. He has over 80 true google book hit (ones that his name shows up in the preview). He is cited in scholar, though coverahe of him is more difficult to find between stuff he edited and is mentioned by name. He has a wapo obit [5] (look carefully, nestled between two others, but not too short (I am not sure this is not paid, the digital copy is mangled)). I am sure he has quite a bit of newpaper coverage (I do see some) - though for this pe±riod archive access is usually needed to really find them. He played a role in labor and in civil rights law in the aclu, he is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To me, the subject and article easily pass WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. The question I see above is, I think, does the subject receive significant coverage (which is an important factor in NOR and WP:N). From N, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Looking over the sources as well as additional sources in newspapers.com (there is a lot of coverage of him in newspapers, but most/all of the newspapers.com material I saw repeats stuff already in the article and cited to newspapers or elsewhere), while he is rarely the main focus of a source, coverage mentioning him describes him and his work sufficiently clearly that I do not think it is original research (or synthesis) to write an article largely on their basis, especially with a fairly complete obituary to help connect the dots. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep, following Ritchie333's relist suggestion. Some believe the sources are enough to pass, but others don't, and it doesn't seem like any significant new sources were brought up after the relist. ansh666 20:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fecto Group of Industries

Fecto Group of Industries (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 in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was tempted to close as "no consensus", but we'll give it one more round
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  The group has an international profile, not just from its history predating the split of India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, but in business relationships with Belarus and China.  It is composed of several individual companies, some private and some which are publicly quoted, which by itself is generally considered to be sufficient evidence to establish Wikipedia notability.  As per this in-depth report focusing on Fecto Cement (FECTC) from Business Recorder (which as per our article "is the biggest financial daily in Pakistan"), "International markets have recently become tough particularly Afghanistan-which is now getting its cement cheap from Iran-and the entire sector has been affected."  As per the snippet for Fecto Cement from www.fectogroup.com/wp-content/uploads/.../Fecto-March-2017.pdf, "Exports to Afghanistan are expected to further reduce due to influx of Iranian..." Unscintillating (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 13:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Infomedia India

Reed Infomedia India (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 can't find any WP:RS, although, as with many India topics, it may well be that they exist but they're just not showing up in my searches. Also nominating JCK (magazine), which is published by Reed; the two articles were created at almost the same time, by the same editor, who has a limited editing history and narrow scope of interests, so I'm guessing WP:COI comes into play. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JCK (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll give this another week to see of some of the stalwart editors from India can find anything
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Hal (film). The topic of this title is not notable per consensus. However, it appears to be a plausible search term for a notable film -- Hal (film), so redirecting there after deleting this article. I'm also protecting the redirect owing to the long term socking here. —SpacemanSpiff 13:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hal (movie)

Hal (movie) (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)

According to this source, the film was an expected project in 2014. I couldnt find any sources about the film, except provided in the article itself. Fails notability guidelines for films, and general notability guidelines as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 update Following the discussion section below, I have changed my nomination for deletion to a redirect. Kindly see it as the #3 vote, with further explanation. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi Mr. MacTidy, thanks for the sock puppet investigation details. Irrespective of the outcome of the same, I think this article can be redirected to Hal (film) as that seems a plausible redirect and would help readers in searching out the appropriate article. What do you think? Thanks. Lourdes 17:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would ordinarily have no objection, but that will mean keeping it on watchlist to prevent the next sock from overwriting the redirect. Deleting it means it will appear in the New Pages feed, with scrutiny from NP Reviewers the next time it's created. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: ditto as comment above. I found this article in the new page feed. Overwriting the redirect will bypass it from the feed. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usernamekiran, Mr. MacTidy, hello once more. Thanks for the response. One could suggest to the closing administrator to redirect the article and do a semi/full-protect for the next six months to an year to ensure that any prospective sock does not mess with the redirect. I would suggest that we keep our readers' as priority in creating this redirect than not create it because of the sock, specially when the protection can help in such cases. Do tell me what do you think of my suggestion. Thanks. Lourdes 00:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a sensible plan, thanks. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You might consider changing your !vote likewise. Warmly. Lourdes 07:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:DIRECTOR. Subject is inherently notable as Director of Oscar nominated film which is itself notable. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amit V Masurkar

Amit V Masurkar (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 director (delete per WP:BIO criteria) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  11:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aguyintobooks, as per DIRECTOR, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The subject's Oscar entry movie is well-reviewed. Therefore, he seems to be significantly notable. (I've not yet placed the sources that discuss the Director himself, of which I've seen many. Without wanting to make you feel slighted in any way - as that is not the intention - I would request you to do a Google search for the same). Thanks. Lourdes 14:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No that's fair enough, I was under the impression that sources about his work did not translate to being about him. However if Oscar nominated films are "significant or well known" then by all means this can be kept. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 
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 02:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARC Ratings

ARC Ratings (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)

By its own admission it is not a major credit rating agency. The only ref is a PE-inspired notice DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Games2win

Games2win (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:NCORP, almost everything about them on the internet is essentially WP:PROMO or not a significant source. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Zawl 13:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Gutowski

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

This subject is a part time actress, and has a youtube channel. She is not notable. Sources are mostly brief mentions. The article has a very promotional sound to it that could mean there is some COI afoot. Fails WP:GNG. Not much significant coverage. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources within the article are more than enough for qualifying on WP:ENTERTAINER, if not BASIC and GNG themselves. If I recall it right, all the sources within the article (or most) were added by me and the majority of the stubby article was written by me more than a year ago. So I don't believe there's any COI, except the normal drive-by fan/vandal edits that have been reverted as and when. Lourdes 14:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG, no problem with the sources...-- Dane talk 06:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sufficient coverage shown in the article's references.  gongshow  talk  07:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the sources I identify in my comment above, which appear to be much more than brief mentions as characterized by nom. I'm additionally persuaded by having run across this book (ISBN 1501146661) in a Barnes & Noble over the weekend. TJRC (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Originate

Originate (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 indication of satisfying corporate notability or that its products satisfy software notability. Google search turns up the usual vanity hits, and no in-depth coverage.

Second and third sentences of lede paragraph are marketining gibberish. They could be deleted, leaving a stub, but deleting promotional about a non-notable company leaves a stub about a non-notable company. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this company does satisfy corporate notability given that they are known within the space as inventing this particular business model which we are writing a research paper on. There are several credible articles which discuss this. Thanks for your suggestions around marketing language. I have further edited and would welcome any other suggestions around language. Thank you! Kine Sundberg (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kine Sundberg (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reynie Rutledge

Reynie Rutledge (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 person; fails notability guidelines with, at best, some small local fame. PROD removed by creator. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm surprised an editor has proposed this page for deletion without offering any explanation. I will offer some details in support of keeping the article I just authored. A bank CEO and businessman in Arkansas may not be known worldwide, but he is a notable individual. Rutledge has been interviewed and discussed at length, and there are many sources available for information, some of which I have provided. Just because you don't know someone, doesn't mean they are automatically not notable. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 03:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ansh666 06:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mass Missile

The Mass Missile (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)

Unremarkable band, fails WP:BAND JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Albums being produced by a popular company does not make this group notable, neither does the context of both WP:NBAND and WP:NALBUM indicate/support your argument. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What has NALBUM got to do with anything? WP:NBAND criterion 5 is "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". Three albums on Sony clearly satisfies that. --Michig (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see #s 4 & 5 criteria. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Never heard of them, but they satisfy not only criterion #5 but also #2 of WP:NBAND. They have had both albums and singles that have charted on Oricon, as evidenced by the Oricon site: [11], [12]. The problem with the Oricon site is that it doesn't show the rankings of older records, although it does show that "Ima made nandemo" was their highest ranking single. This article, however, states that it peaked at #22. Michitaro (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Supersport 300 World Championship

2017 Supersport 300 World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article relies on citations from the promotion itself. Once you strip that away, there isn't enough to pass GNG. NSPORT provides no room to presume a single season of a motorbike racing series is notable. Sources like this and this, questionable as they are, aren't even used here because Boxmule appears more interested in using Wikipedia as a webhost to store sports statistics Chris Troutman (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Saucony. Please attempt mergers through normal channels first before resorting to AFD. See WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saucony sponsorships

List of Saucony sponsorships (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 need for a separate list. Delete and move the sponsorship on the main page Saucony. Greenbörg (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laxman Kagne

Laxman Kagne (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 producer, also active in a charitable trust. Topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. Part of a (probably paid) article series on members and activities of the Kagne family. Most of the article is a copypaste job from Halal (film) and doesn't inherit any stand-alone notability. Google search showed no in-depth coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surekha Kagne

Surekha Kagne (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 actress, doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Part of a (probably paid) article series on members and activities of the Kagne family. Most of the article is a copypaste job from Halal (film) and doesn't inherit any stand-alone notability. Google search showed no in-depth coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Low participation and no consensus after three relists. (non-admin closure) feminist 15:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Boys Choir

Jerusalem Boys Choir (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)

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per the Hebrew source search provided later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Quiñones

Michel Quiñones (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 MMA fighter does not meet WP:MMA or WP:GNG PRehse (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Podcast. ansh666 06:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Podguide

Podguide (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 do not believe this term merits notability requirement for inclusion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Piotrus. On Google Scholar, I've been able to see sources like this (which gives a full paragraph describing what podguides are) and this (see the paragraph starting with "A PodGuide is like the audio tour headsets you rent in museums, except you download it to your ipod..."). The usage of podguides also seems quite prevalent in general. I would tend to think these provide a good basis to have an article on a subject that may have encyclopedic worth. What do you think? Thanks. Lourdes 07:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Sadly, your first link is to a cloud and has expired already (or may be only available to you), if you can give me a different link/article title I'll take a look. If you meant 'iPod in Education: The Potential for Teaching and Learning', I did find the definition there 'A Podguide is a variation on the audio books mentioned above but is designed to allow pupils to provide a guided tour of a variety of different situations. The sort of thing that could be produced could be a pupils’ interpretation of a local museum, a guide to the local area or an explanation of a project they have completed such as a design and technology project'; it's sound but one short paragraph is not an indication of SIGNIFICANT coverage. As for the second article, my university does not have access to it and I cannot find it through Lib Genesis, so I can only AGF your claim here. Still, Google Scholar returns only 47 results for the use of the word podguide. News give me 0 hits, and while books give over 3k, it seems mostly related to a specific company / websites. At best, I think we could consider where to merge this, as the term can be explained in some other article in a short paragraph, but I don't think it merits a stand-alone article, as I do not see sufficient sources to prove that this term has generated significant coverage. It is not a hoax, but I still am not convinced it is notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying. Do you think a merge to Audio tour/Audio guide might help? Thanks. Lourdes 07:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Hmmm, I'd think podcast might be a better target. The articles you linked seem to discuss a tool used only in museums and sightseeing tours. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merging it with Podcast sounds appropriate. I'll !vote likewise. Thanks. Lourdes 08:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket tournaments

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

The article which describes tournaments played by both men and women doesn't cite any sources and probably not matching the notability criteria. Abishe (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, the article may not be accepted or needed for WikiProject Cricket. So I decided that this is not a notable one. Abishe (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suez Canal Bridge (disambiguation)

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

Ordinary, orphan WP:2DABS page where disambiguation is not required. Primary topic has hatnote to the only other possible use. De-PRODed by Patar knight. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walpole Island (disambiguation)

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

An ordinary, orphan, WP:2DABS page where diambiguation is not required. Primary topic (a redirect to Walpole Island First Nation) has a hatnote to the only other use. De-PRODed by Patar knight who added a partial title match WP:PTM to the See Also section. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Walpole Island - Algonac Ferry would never be referred to simply as 'Walpole Island' so there's no ambiguity. Delete per WP:2DABS. Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Edgar-Jones

Daisy Edgar-Jones (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)

Borderline notability. From my POV it's WP:TOSOON Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 06:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 06:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Many !votes were variations on WP:VAGUEWAVE; a few "keep" !voters supplied sources to demonstrate notability, and were not challenged. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inayatullah Faizi

Inayatullah Faizi (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 in-depth coverage found in WP:RS. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pride of Performance was awarded to 100+ individuals in 2010 so how such award can make him notable? Greenbörg (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a link? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
23 cites which is rather low. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it certainly is low and totally fails to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow assessment of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 04:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paperboy (2017 film)

Paperboy (2017 film) (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)

Per WP:NFILM. Sources are publicly releases, it doesn't look as though the film has been released yet. Comatmebro (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 05:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 05:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam C. Walmus

Adam C. Walmus (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:BIO. Non-notable. Only source provided is primary and I didn't find any others. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 07:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 07:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Perry (American Author)

Sarah Perry (American Author) (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 writer & blogger - apart from a single passing mention in the New York Times here, I'm unable to find coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources - certainly not the kind of in-depth, significant coverage that would make her notable. The refs which do turn up (like those used in the article) are mostly self-published and/or blogs.

Note that she is not to be confused with the other, better known Sarah Perry, who is obviously notable and covered in plenty of RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete antinatalism activist who publishes articles, and books on the subject with a non-bluelinked, small press, ninebandedbooks.com, specializing in "writers who chafe against prevailing cultural sentiments and taboos." Her books have only been reviewed on non-notable blogs. I have been a=unable to locate WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS on her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No RS, full of OR, orphan, can't find any citations. WorldCat shows only 6 institutions hold her book Every cradle is a grave. Written by SPA whose 2nd edit was creating this article...likely vanity or fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not fulfill notability requirements at this time.Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article claims her work was "taught at Columbia University" without sourcing such a claim, or making it clear weather this was in one class or many, and how deeply her work was interacted with. Short of having a course at Columbia entitled "the thought of Sarah Perry, phylosopher" I doubt this could add much to notability. Does not pass any of our guidelines. Not for academics, or writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Artemis Networks#Technology. MBisanz talk 02:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PCell (telecommunications)

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

The claims for the product have not been backed by public data after several years. This is a single product company that has not even delivered that product. Fails Wikipedia inclusion criteria in several ways. Daveburstein (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist 15:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Records

Highland Records (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, could not find sources, most of the search results are about another non notable record label in Louisville, KY. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Highly notable label. At least three very, very notable artists recorded for the label. Angel Baby was a huge national hit on the label. Search Google Books for " "Highland Records" "Billboard" " and you'll get results. Because the era, most sources are probably not digitized yet. As is, there is enough verifiable information out there to make a useful article about a topic of interest to record collectors, musicologists and music historians. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG. The search suggested above indeed shows results. -- Dane talk 06:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ansh666 06:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Chaski

Carole Chaski (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)

Nice lady who does interesting work, but I'm struggling to find anything like GNG-compliant coverage. EEng 01:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
International work:
While Chaski may not meet the WP:PROF criteria, surely the above reliable sources demonstrate the article can be developed to strengthen the case for WP:GNG. And I did not even include here any of the articles on her Shakespeare validation work of the Kurt Cobain suicide/murder conspiracy fiasco or the controversy over the different takes on forensic linguistics, specifically the contrast with the methods of James R. Fitzgerald of Unabomber case fame. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let my esteemed fellow editors follow the Washington Post link and see what's there for themselves; it's something, but can only charitably be called anything that would even begin to contribute toward GNG. After that, things go rapidly downhill:
  • The New Yorker text on Chaski reads, in its entirety:Carole Chaski, the executive director of the Institute for Linguistic Evidence and the president of Alias Technology, in Georgetown, Delaware, which markets linguistic software, agrees. Chaski has been working to perfect a computer algorithm that identifies patterns hidden in syntax. With enough linguistic material to work with, she says, she can run the program and draw accurate linguistic conclusions. Her goal is to develop a standard “validated tool” that police, civil investigators, and linguists can turn to when testifying in crucial cases, such as a capital murder trial. “If this is real, these tools should be so reliable that I can automate them and somebody can use them,” she says. Chaski foresees a time when forensic-linguistic “technicians” will do what DNA technicians in crime labs do: “They learn how to run a piece of software or run a Southern blot”—a standard DNA test—“through electrophoresis and then go, ‘Here are my results.’ ”
    In Chaski’s view, a trail of words can be parsed to reveal its author, but that work is best done quantitatively, through brute computational force, not qualitatively, by subjective scholars. Forensic linguistics, she believes, should not be limited to a few highly credentialled experts who have been approved by the courts to testify. She warned me of the recklessness of an “academic” and an “ex-cop” hanging out a shingle, and said their methodology was “fraught with error.” In the small world of forensic linguistics, it was obvious that she meant Leonard and Fitzgerald.
    Leonard said that Chaski’s computerized approach made him “want to take a nap.”
  • NYT text on Chaski reads, in its entirety:Some experts are more optimistic. Carole E. Chaski, president of Alias Technology and executive director of the Institute for Linguistic Evidence, has taken on what she terms “the keyboard dilemma,” that is, “the problem of identifying the authorship of a document that was produced by a computer to which multiple users had access.” She has developed computer software that categorizes grammatical structures as “marked” and “unmarked”: an unmarked noun phrase, for instance, has its main noun at the end of a simple phrase (“our marriage,” “a divorce”), while a marked one has the noun in the beginning of a phrase (“anything you ask”) or in the middle (“the rest of our lives”). These aspects of a writer’s syntax are relatively stable across different styles of writing, Ms. Chaski argues. They are also less prone to technological intervention — compared to spelling and punctuation, which can be changed on the fly by spell-check and autocorrect features ... (Ms. Chaski claims 95 percent accuracy with her syntactic method.)
  • The Oxford Handbook on Language and Law "text" on Chaski is, in its entirely, bullet item reading:Carole Chaski, Author Identification in the Forensic Setting
  • The text on Chaski in Forensic Linguistics: Second Edition reads, in its entirety:The first linguist to consider markedness in terms of authorship systematically was Carol Chaski ... Chaski should be credited with having brought forensic authorship comparison (as opposed to long text authorship ‘attribution’) into the scientific arena, and out of the darkness of literary criticism, canonical literary corpus construction and discourse analysis modes of authorship identification.
Shall I go on? This is nothing like GNG. EEng 21:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Carole Chaski is used by the FBI, CIA, major corporations and was the star witness to a $50B Fraud case in Russia. Outrageous Attack going on here... Carole Chaski is possibly THE leading expert in the field of Linguistic Evidence. Her expertise is acknowledged worldwide. Her International Expertise was recently used to protect investors from 50 Billion Dollars worth of Russian Investment Fraud... and I quote,

"The Yukos case is among the most flamboyant investor-state arbitrations (Chevron v. Ecuador a close competitor). Yukos reads like a paperback thriller-settling of scores between rogue oligarchs and the Putin regime with billions at stake. Definitely worth a mini-series on HBO or Showtime. Last night at the ISDS answer to the Oscars-the Global Arbitration Review annual awards-a Dutch court snatched the prize for most important decision 2017, a highlight of the black-tie event in a Milan hotel.

The Hague district court judges had set aside the UNCITRAL/Energy Charter Treaty award against Russia. That decision is on appeal in Holland. And there are proceedings elsewhere. For instance, the DC Circuit stayed litigation on the arbitral award pending a final outcome in the Netherlands."

And, who pray tell was the person that protected the investors from the Fraud? Again, I quote:

"The plot thickens when the plagiarism detective comes on the scene-top linguist Dr. Carole Chaski evaluates the text of the award and comes to the conclusion that "with over 95% certainty, Mr Valasek himself wrote approximately 70% of the three most important chapters." here's the link:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertKwasny (talk • contribs) — RobertKwasny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

The site quoted is some kind of advocacy site. EEng 20:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) That's true EEng#s - I've NO history within Wikipedia -- does that mean my truth is less valuable than your assassination attempt? Granted I've not posted an article before, contested one or played in this playground... but I do believe in Truth, Justice and the American Way... so fade away, I'm your magnifying glass and your misdeeds are enlarged by my lack of Wiki Sophistication. Play on that all you will - I readily admit my shortfalls in this playground.[reply]

KEEP:RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Administrator intervention against vandalism -- Look, I've never used Wikipedia before RobertKwasny (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC) but I'm starting to get the hang of it... EEng#s you should be ashamed for what you are attempting to do to a valuable addition to society... Play all the games you want... I'll keep watching the vicious nature of your Personal Vendetta![reply]

KEEP:RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) If meeting of the GNG is the sole reason being used to assert a notability, then yes... those sources being used for showing notability need to be significant (IE: more than a trivial mention even if not the main topic of the source material) in that they address the subject directly and in some detail. But again, Wikipedia:Notability (paragraph 2) specifically allows that the GNG does not always have to be met. It is the verifiability of any assertion in a reliable source that is always mandated... and per guideline, notability does not always depend the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual. So with respects, a topic missing out on meeting the GNG is not the final nail in the coffin.[reply]

KEEP:RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) WP:ANYBIO states that winning a notable award or receiving multiple nominations for such awards shows notability... as long as the assertion is properly WP:Verified in reliable sources. It does not also demand meeting GNG. WP:ATH has long accepted per consensus that performing at a professional level in a major sport is acceptable in allowing inclusion. It does not also demand meeting GNG. WP:PROF states that someone could be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."[reply]

KEEP:RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) And while, there is probably some other more relevant pages than Carole Chaski is VERY notable and VERY expert. I believe I've made my point Administrators. EEng#s is PROUD of being knocked off Wiki before... RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) and his personal attack against Carole Chaski is transparently obvious... get a life, you sad man.[reply]

KEEP:RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Admins, please review EEng#s history and take him down again.[reply]

  • Comment – RobertKrasy - As a new user, you may have missed the behavioral guideline to assume good faith. While EEng and I may argue the merits of whether the subject of an article meets WP:GNG or WP:ACAD, we assume that our motives, at least, coincide in the effort to make the encyclopedia better. When you make an argument here, please refrain from personal attacks, either in the text you contribute or in the edit summary. I’ve struck your extra votes above, as each person participating only has one vote. - Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GmE. People like this don't fool anyone. EEng 23:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Grand'mere Eugene for explaining the rules to this Newbie...RobertKwasny (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC) I'll refrain from further elaboration on a personal nature - I'll just add Ms. Chaski's extensive body of work for Administrative Review and I intend to reach out to her and assist her in doing a proper edit on her full background:[reply]

Listed below are publications and presentations in forensic linguistics, computational linguistics, psycholinguistics and theoretical linguistics. All publications are authored by Carole E. Chaski PhD and joint publications list co-authoring research associates.

Extended content

Academic Book Chapters

2012. “Author Identification in the Forensic Setting.” In Lawrence Solan and Peter Tiermsa, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, Oxford University Press. 2010. “Linguistics as a Forensic Science: The Case of Author Identification.” In Susan Behrens and Judith A. Parker, editors. Language in the Real World.Routledge. 2008. “The Computational-Linguistic Approach to Forensic Authorship Attribution.” In Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz, and Dieter Stein, editors. Law and Language: Theory and Practice. Düsseldorf University Press. 2008. “Authorship Attribution in a Multinational Corporate Setting.” With Mary Snider Boldt. In Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz, and Dieter Stein, editors. Law and Language: Theory and Practice. Düsseldorf University Press. 2007. “The Keyboard Dilemma and Author Identification.” In Sujeet Shinoi and Philip Craiger, editors. Advances in Digital Forensics III. New York: Springer.

2005. “Forensic Linguistics, Author Identification and Admissibility.” In Cyril Wecht and John Rago, editors. Foundations of Forensic Science and Law: Investigative Applications in Criminal, Civil and Family Justice. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Academic Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles

2013. “Best Practices and Admissibility in Forensic Author Identification.” Journal of Law & Policy, Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York. 2007. “Identifying Authorship by Byte-Level N-Grams: The Source Code Author Profile (SCAP) Method.” International Journal of Digital Evidence, Spring 2007, Volume 6:1. With G. Frantzeskou, E. Stamatatos, S. Gritzalis, and B. S. Howald. 2006. (accepted and I withdrew this manuscript). “Discriminant Function Analysis Results for Authorship Attribution in the Forensic Setting.” International Journal of Speech, Language and Law. 2005. “Computational Stylistics in Forensic Author Identification.” Proceedings of the SIGIR 2005 Workshop on Stylistics. ACM SIGIR 2005, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. 2005. “Discriminant Function Analysis in Forensic Authorship Attribution.” Proceedings of the Classification Society of North America/Interface Foundation Annual Meeting. Interface Symposium and its Proceedings: Computing Science and Statistics. St. Louis: Washington University. 2005. “Who’s At the Keyboard? Recent Results in Authorship Attribution.” International Journal of Digital Evidence. Volume 4:1. Spring 2005. 2002.“Language as Clue: Authorship Identification in an Electronic Society.” Law Enforcement Executive Institute Forum. Volume 2, Number 3. September 2002. Published by University of Western Illinois. 2001.“Empirical Evaluation of Language-Based Author Identification Techniques.” Forensic Linguistics: International Journal of Speech, Language and Law. Volume 8:1. pp. 1-64. June 2001. Published by University of Birmingham, England. 1997. “Who Wrote It? Steps Toward a Science of Authorship Identification.” National Institute of Justice Journal. September 1997.

ON COMPUTATIONAL AND THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS:

1994. “The Future Pluperfect: Double Tense in Southern American English.” American Speech: Journal of the American Dialect Society.

1992. “Networked Academic Publishing and the Rhetorics of its Reception.” Centennial Review. With Eyal Amiran and John Unsworth.

1990. “The Big Three in Contemporary Syntax: Review of Geoffrey Horrock’s Generative Grammar.” American Speech: Journal of the American Dialect Society.

1988. “GB, GPSG and the Separation of Case and Agreement.” Proceedings of CLS Parasession on Agreement. University of Chicago: Chicago.

1987. “Encoding Case Variation in the Grammar.” Proceedings of NWAV XV. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

1986. “Linear and Metrical Analyses of Manam Stress.” Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. XXV.

1985. “Parser Design and the Mapping from Competence to Performance.” Brown University Working Papers in Linguistics Volume V.

Monograph

1999. Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Also available through National Criminal Justice Reference Service: NCJ 178240. This was jointly authored by the Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence in which I served.

Academic and Professional Conference Presentation Abstracts and Invited Lectures (Invited Lectures are Starred *)

  • 2014g. “Forensic Linguistics: Myths and Truths.” American University, Washington DC.

2014f. “Collecting Ground-Truth, Web-Based Data for Research in Forensic Linguistics.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA.

  • 2014e. “Science and Conscience in Forensic Linguistics.” Martin Luther King Celebration, Department of Linguistics, University of Michigan.

2014d. “Data for Empirical Foundation in Forensic Linguistics: Overview of Symposium.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN.

2014c. “Collecting Forensic Linguistic data: Experimental Subjects and Authorship Identification.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN. With Judith A Parker.

2014b.”Collecting Forensic Linguistic data: Police and Investigative Sources of Data for Deception Detection Research.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN. With Sgt. Larry Barksdale and Michael Reddington.

2014a. “The Four Corners of Investigative Forensic Linguistics.” TALE: The Association for Linguistic Evidence 2014, Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN.

  • 2013f. “Forensic Linguistics and Digital Evidence.” George Washington University, Washington DC.
  • 2013e. “Opportunity and Community in Forensic Computational Linguistics.” University of Washington Computational Linguistics Program, online presentation.
  • 2013d. “Forensic Linguistics, Watergate and Insider Threat.” Wecht Institute of Forensic Science, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA. With Philip T. Mellinger.

2013c. “Do Police Suicide Notes Differ from General Population Suicide Notes?” Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. With Robert Dourglas, Jr.

  • 2013b. “Linguistics as a Tool in Interviewing and Interrogation.” Wicklander-Zulawski Elite Training. Pleasanton, CA.

2013a. “Re Forensic Linguistics: Five data Handling Issues.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.

2011c. “IntentFinder: A System for Discovering Significant Information Implicit in Large, Heterogeneous Document Collections.” With Lyle Ungar and Steve Liebholz. Proceedings of IEEE Homeland Security Technology, Boston, MA.

2011b. “Facebook and the Faceless: Authorship in an Electronic Society.” With Alice Lustre, Esq. Jurisprudence Section, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA

2011a. “Is This a Real Suicide Note? Authentication Using Statistical Classifiers and Computational Linguistics.” With Denise Huddle. Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Section, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA.

  • 2010f. “Forensic Linguistics in the Real World of Law.” Marymount Manhattan University, New York, NY.
  • 2010e. “Authorship Identification Methods.” Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
  • 2010d. “A Modern History of Handwriting Examination.” National Association of Document Examiners Annual Meeting, Portland, OR.
  • 2010c. “Forensic Linguistic Methods for Document Examiners.” National Association of Document Examiners Annual Meeting, Portland, OR.
  • 2010b. “ALIAS and web_ALIAS.” National Association of Document Examiners Annual Meeting, Portland, OR.
  • 2010a. “Forensic Linguistic Methods.” University of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg, VA.

2009d. “The Language of Trauma Narratives.” Proceedings of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health. New York, NY.

2009c. “Forensic Linguistics: Curious and Instructive Parallels between Voiceprints and Forensic Stylistics.” With John R. Middleton, Esq. Engineering Sciences Section. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Denver CO.

2009b. “Validation Testing for FLASH ID on the Chaski Writer Sample Database.” With Mark A. Walch. Questioned Documents Section. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Denver CO.

2009a. “Using Computational Forensic Linguistics to Screen for Pedophilic Communications.” With Raye Croghan. Digital and Multimedia Section. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Denver CO.

  • 2008d. “New Directions in Forensic Linguistics: Syntactic Approaches to the Analysis of Forensic Texts.” Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ.

2008c. “Using the N-Gram Approach for Forensic Authorship Attribution and Text Relatedness.” Association for Digital Forensics, Security and Law. Oklahoma City, OK. April.

  • 2008b. “How You Can Use Forensic Linguistics.” Nebraska International Association of Identification. Ashland, NE. April.
  • 2008a.”A Computational Approach to Threat Assessment.” European Association of Threat Assessment Professionals. Lucerne, Switzerland. March.

2007i. (with Frances Olsen, J.D.) “A Diachronic Analysis of Judicial Language in Domestic Violence Rulings.” Proceedings of the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting, Berlin, Germany. July.

2007h. “Overview of Research in the Linguistics of Deception.” Panel on the Linguistics of Deception. International Association of Forensic Linguists 8, Seattle, WA. July.

2007g. “Multilingual Forensic Author Identification Through N-Gram Analysis.” International Association of Forensic Linguists 8, Seattle, WA. July.

2007f. “Empirically Testing the Uniqueness of Aggregated Stylemarkers.” Panel on Authorship Attribution. International Association of Forensic Linguists 8, Seattle, WA. July.

2007e. “Real Threats, Simulated Threats and the Unsaid.” Proceedings of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health, Padua, Italy. June.

2007d. “Automating a Reliable System for Distinguishing Real from Simulated Threat Letters.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Section, February, 2007. San Antonio, TX.

2007c. “A Validated Admissible, Computational Method for Detecting Electronic Authorship.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Engineering Sciences Section, February, 2007. San Antonio, TX.

2007 b. “The Keyboard Dilemma and Forensic Author Identification.” International Workshop on Digital Forensics (IFIP- Digital Evidence). January, 2007. National Center for Forensic Science, Orlando, FL.

  • 2007a. “Forensic Linguistics, E-Discovery and Digital Forensics.” Delaware Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section. January, 2007. Wilmington, DE.

2006h. “Text-typing a Suicide Note and Justice for Diaz-Perez. Proceedings of the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. July.

2006g. “Text-typing Threat Letters.” (with Blake Stephen Howald, JD and Judith A. Parker, PhD. Proceedings of the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. July.

2006f. “Authorship Identification in Actual Situations: Questions, Data, and Methods. Bonn University, Bonn, Germany. May.

2006e. “Multilingual Interferences in Corporate Email Authorship Identification.” (with Mary Snider PhD.) Bonn University, Bonn, Germany. May.

2006d. “The Computational-Linguistic Approach to Forensic Authorship Attribution.” The Language and Law Conference, Düsseldorf, Germany. May.

2006c. “German-American Standards for Authorship Attribution in Multinational Corporation Cases.” (with Mary Snider, PhD.) The Language and Law Conference, Düsseldorf, Germany. May.

2006b. “The Forensic Linguistics of Authorship Attribution. Minisymposium on Language and Law. Yale University Law School. April.

  • 2006a. “Applied Linguistics, Forensic Linguistics and Authorship Attribution.” Montclair State University. February.’

2005f. “Computational Stylistics in Forensic Author Identification.” Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval Conference, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. August.

2005e. “Alternative Distance Measures for Validating the Syntactic Analysis Method.” Seventh Biennial International Association of Forensic Linguists Conference, University of Cardiff, Wales. July.

2005d. “Discriminant Function Analysis in Forensic Authorship Attribution.” Joint Meeting of the Classification Society of North America and The Interface, Washington University, St. Louis, MO. June.

  • 2005c. “The Legal and Scientific Status of Forensic Author Identification.” Maryland Public Defenders Conference, Ocean City, MD. May.

2005b. “Syntactic Measures for Authorship Determination.” International Linguistics Association Conference, New York, NY. April.

  • 2005a. “Pattern Recognition Techniques in Forensic Sciences: Results and Software Demonstration” National Institute of Justice Research Committee, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA. February.

2004b. “Recent Results in the Validation of the Syntactic Analysis Method of Authorship Attribution.” Conference on Language and Law, Cardiff, Wales. July.

2004a.“The Syntactic Analysis Method of Author Identification.” National Institute of Justice Research Committee, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX. February.

2003. “Author Identification in Civil and Criminal Cases.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lincoln Laboratory, Speech and Language Group, Technical Exchange Meeting (including LL, ILE, USSS, Brooklyn Law School). Lexington, MA. October.

2001. “A Validated Method for Authorship Attribution.” International Association of Forensic Linguists Bi-annual Meeting, St. Julian’s, Malta. June-July.

2000. “Identification through Linguistic Patterns.” International Association of Identification Annual Meeting, Charleston, WV. July.

1999a. “Reliability and Author Identification.” National Conference on Science and the Law (sponsored by US DOJ’s National Institute of Justice, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, American Bar Association and National Center for State Courts In collaboration with Federal Judicial Center and National Academy of Sciences. San Diego, CA. April.

1999b. “Linguistic-based Authorship Identification.” Association of Forensic Document Examiners, Continuing Education Symposium, Phoenix, AZ. November.

1998. “Toward an Authentic Science of Authorship.” Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Sciences, Rockville, MD. May.

1998. “An Automated Language-Based Authorship System for Document Authentication.” Questioned Documents Section, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. February.

  • 1998. “Linguistic Methods of Determining Authorship: Progress Report 3.” National Institute of Justice Research Committee, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. February.

1997a. “Electronic Parsing Authorship System.” International Association of Forensic Linguists Biannual Meeting, Durham, NC. September.

1997b. “Linguistic Methods of Determining Authorship: Progress Report. National Institute of Justice Research Committee, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, New York, NY. February.

1997c. “Electronic Parsing for Idiolectal Features in Suspect Documents.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Winter Meeting, New York, NY. January.

1996a. “Empirical Evidence for Language-Based Methods of Author Identification.” International Association of Identification Annual Meeting, Greensboro, NC. July.

  • 1996b. “Linguistic Methods of Determining Authorship: Progress Report 1.” National Institute of Justice Research Committee, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting. Nashville, TN. February.

1995. “Language-Based Methods of Author Identification.” Mid-Atlantic Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Fairfax, VA. May.

  • 1993.”The Role of the Linguist in Forensic Investigation.” Major Crimes Division, Raleigh Police Department, Raleigh, NC. April.

ON COMPUTATIONAL AND THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS:

1993. “The Syntax of Double Modals in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar.” Chapel Hill Spring Linguistics Conference, Chapel Hill, NC.

1990. “Chomsky’s Rivals: Alternative Grammars.” Exploration in Cognition and Language: The Influence of Noam Chomsky, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

1990. “Accounting for Double Modal Dialects in GPSG.” Symposium on Double Modals in Multiple Framework South Eastern Conference On Linguistics, Greenwood, SC.

1989. “Using Hypercard to Represent Linguistic Knowledge and Teach Metalinguistic Reasoning.” 10th Annual Florida Educational Technology Conference, Daytona Beach, FL.

1989. “A Metrical Analysis of Papago Noun Pluralization.” (w/Kenneth Andrews MPH). Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.

  • 1989. “Parsing Really Natural Natural Language.” Center for Machine Intelligence, University of South Carolina-Columbia.
  • 1989. “Case Theory, Case In Tiers, GPSG/HPSG and Case Attraction in Greek.” MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA.

1989. “Case as Stepsister in GB Theory.” South Eastern Conference On Linguistics, Norfolk, VA.

1988. “Morphological Agreement and Binding Theory.” South Atlantic Modern Language Association, Washington, DC.

1988. “Morphological Conditions on Binding Theory and Syntactic Change.” Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

1988. “Cross-Linguistic Evidence on PRO’s Government.” Symposium on Typology and Parameters, South Eastern Conference On Linguistics, Memphis, TN.

1987. “Case In Tiers and Case Attraction in Greek.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

1987. “Infinitival Constituency in RG, GB and GPSG.” Modern Language Association, San Francisco, CA

1987. “A PROblem in Ancient Greek and Ozark English.” 13th Annual Conference on Language and Linguistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MI.

1987. “Syntactic Markedness and Clausal Integrity in RG.” 3rd Biennial Conference on Grammatical Relations and Relational Grammar, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

1987. “Pragmatic Factors in the Syntax of Ancient Greek Anaphora.” Penn Linguistics Colloquium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

1986. “COMP, Case and the Greek Infinitive.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, New York, NY.

1986. “Theta Theory, Case Theory and Ancient Greek Case Attraction.” North East Modern Language Association, New Brunswick, NJ.

  • 1978. “Antigone, Ethos and the Dual.” Bryn Mawr College Classics Colloquium, Bryn Mawr, PA.

ON PSYCHOLOGY OF READING:

  • 1993.”May I Have A Word With You? Adult Literacy and Definitions of Word.” Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA.

1992. “Metalinguistic Awareness and Literate/Illiterate Responses to Segment Deletion Tasks.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA

1990. “The Word for Linguists, Oral Poets and Adult illiterates.” South Atlantic Modern Language Association, Tampa, FL.

  • 1989.”Metalinguistic Awareness and the Acquisition of Literacy.” Linguistics Program Colloquium, University of South Carolina-Columbia.

1989. “Metalinguistic Awareness, Literacy and Natural Readers.” Cognitive Science Group, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

1988. “Metalinguistic Assumptions of Reading Methods.” Conference on Literacy and Linguistics. 17th Annual UWM Linguistics Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.

1985. “Linguistic Rules and EFL Reading.” 6th Annual USF Conference on Second Language Acquisition, Tampa, FL.

1982. “Literacy, Self and Other: From Plato to Poulet.” Conference on Future of Literacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.

Technical Grant Reports

1998. A Daubert-Inspired Assessment of Current Techniques for Language-Based Author Identification. ILE Technical Report1098. Also available through National Criminal Justice Reference Service: NCJ 172234.

ON PSYCHOLINGUISTICS OF LITERACY:

1994. Assessing the TextDisc-Based Workplace Literacy Program: Method, Data and Results. Technical Report. (with Jamie Strauss Larsen). NCSU. Raleigh, North Carolina.

1993. Design of an Assessment Module for TextDisc, a Multimedia Workplace Literacy Program. Technical Report. NCSU. Raleigh, North Carolina.

RobertKwasny (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a very, very bad idea to draw the subject herself into this situation. That never ends well. EEng 03:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The large number of publications accompanied by rather few citations in GS suggest that the subject has made disproportionally little impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]


Is this some kind of alternate universe...??? RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia is full of incompetents, unpublished, no peer review, never been a keynote speaker, have not spent a lifetime developing and expanding discoveries.[reply]

With this AMAZING body of work, it is inconceivable that you EEng#s would be so self centered as to THREATEN a scholar... who are you? My name is in the open for all to see... RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Xxanthippe, "disproportionally little impact"??? Seriously?? You're using that as the Fount of your reason for Deletion? The lack of Google Scholar Citations????

Are you SERIOUS? GS is the HOME of Spinner Article and Fake Citations!!

This expert has: Co-authored in totally respected academic publications: The Oxford Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, Oxford University Press., Law and Language: Theory and Practice. Düsseldorf University Press, Foundations of Forensic Science and Law: Investigative Applications in Criminal, Civil and Family Justice. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) What does it take to be considered an expert by the two of you?[reply]

Eight or nine Academic Peer Reviewed Articles? RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Tons of University Presentations at Major Institutions?[reply]

  American Speech: Journal of the American Dialect Society.
  Proceedings of CLS Parasession on Agreement. University of Chicago: Chicago.
  Proceedings of NWAV XV. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
  “Parser Design and the Mapping from Competence to Performance.” Brown University Working Papers in Linguistics Volume V.
  Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

American University, Washington DC. University of Michigan George Washington University, Washington DC.

Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston, MA. IEEE Homeland Security Technology, Boston, MA. American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA

I'm stunned that the two of you are colluding to have Carole Chaski Deleted from Wikipedia, she's clearly extremely important in her field RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are your fields?

SAD DAY WHEN TWO ANONYMOUS CRITICS CAN ATTEMPT ASSASSINATION OF AN ACCOMPLISHED INDIVIDUAL !!

The reason being what? The motivation being what?

Clearly, VERY clearly, Carole Chaski is a MAJOR contributor to her field.

Undeniably RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AS ANY CASUAL READER OF HER ACCOMPLISHMENTS COULD SEE AND WOULD SAY...

Notability is not always a contest to see who is more popular in press. While the verification of any assertion in a reliable source is always mandated, per guideline, notability does not always depend the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual, nor that it be immediately available online. WP:ENT and WP:GNG are not mutually exclusive. Meeting one OR the other might be enough to allow consideration of notability. This summary is made per policy WP:V and discussions and AFDs and talkpages and noticeboards for several years. RobertKwasny (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fascinated by this process and to see if it is actually easy to disparage a life's work RobertKwasny (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, does this woman ever sleep? RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us are wondering the same thing about you. You're not helping your cause by acting this way. Notability isn't about what someone has done, but about what others have written about him or her. EEng 16:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Keep After digging through sources on databases, there's enough for her to pass GNG and she came up with a new technique that while it may be controversial, is certainly used and allowed by courts as evidence. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2017 — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Megalibrarygirl (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
Could you list just three sources satisfying GNG? EEng 23:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It occurred to me instead of WP:GNG or WP:PROF, Chaski meets notability under WP:AUTHOR:2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Chaski doesn't fit academic criteria, because she left teaching to start a business as an expert witness; she has created a method of analysis in forensic linguistics that is accepted by US State and Federal courts, as verified by inline citations in the article; she is considered a pioneer in forensic linguistics. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, AUTHOR is for artists, architects, novelists -- stuff like that. But even that aside, I think you misunderstand the significance of "created a method of analysis in forensic linguistics that is accepted by US State and Federal courts as verified by inline citations in the article". What the source says is that Chaski's "statistical analysis of syntax in authorship has met the Daubert challenge in the US court system". I know that sounds like a big deal, but it's not. I've devised Daubert-qualified techniques myself, and it would never occur to me that I'm notable. EEng 05:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EEng#s I truly have no cause to help -- I just don't like bullies and blundered into this. It outraged me enough to learn Wikipedia's mechanisms (abet badly) and to speak up - a first for me having been in computing for 41 years. To the others monitoring and deciding on this - I defer - done enough to demonstrate that I'm bad at this and Chaski is a notable that has earned the right and place of honor for her accomplishments, whatever category Wikipedia applies to her - but Deletion... would be a travesty! RobertKwasny (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Thank you Megalibrarygirl RobertKwasny (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Thank you EEng#s for admitting to being in the same field, perhaps with an axe to grind, I don't know and don't care... but your it would never occur to me that I'm notable. has (at least) given us something that we can agree on. RobertKwasny (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC) EEng#s, perhaps you should stop trying to trash someone that is more accomplished in your field, than you... it's the poorest and lowest form of discourse. That is unless your expertise is so superior to hers that you've been the expert witness in a $51 Billion dollar court case - if you have, your credibility will take quantum leaps forward in my world. RobertKwasny (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this $50B court case - trying to identify the culprit that authored the language that was designed to defraud investors, needed an expert... Chaski was the chosen expert. By the rules of Wikipedia, I cannot vote KEEP again, but can only drive home the FACTS that should end EEng#s 's argument that Chaski should be eliminated from Wikipedia. She is undoubtedly an expert by every measure. RobertKwasny (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Chaski is not involved in anything even remotely like what I do. That you think my last post means she is shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
  • Chaski was not "the chosen expert" in the case to which you refer, but someone whose opinion one party has asked the trier of fact to consider.
  • Anyway (for the nth time) notability has nothing to do with being an expert or what someone's written; it has to do with what's been written about someone.
  • I'm paging a few uninvolved admins (David Eppstein, Bishonen, Cullen328) asking them to collapse your offtopic rants and give you a final warning against further disruption. Consideration might also be given to an UAA or COI action based on [17] (since you claim above that your "name is in the open for all to see").
EEng 23:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources brought forward by Grand'mere Eugene are sufficient, in my judgment, to show that Chaski is notable. I am declining to act as an administrator here. Instead, I am commenting as an editor, because I have concluded that this article should be kept, despite the ugliness of this debate. RobertKwasny, let me give you some friendly advice here: Your conduct is beyond the pale, overly combative and completely counterproductive. If you persist in unseemly personal attacks against your fellow editors, another administrator is likely to block you, and I would not object. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. RobertKwasny didn't know about Wikipedia's behavioral policies, such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith when he posted here. (Please look them up now, Robert, and listen carefully to what Cullen tells you above, because if there's further rudeness from you I'll block you myself.) I can't really blame you for that, as you only registered an account on 24 September, clearly for the exclusive purpose of posting at this deletion discussion and attempting to keep the article on Wikipedia. How did you learn of the article and the deletion discussion, please? That's the question I'm interested in, and I've asked it on your own talkpage as well, to make sure you don't miss it. I'm sure you realise that if people are canvassed from the outside to come here and yell at contributors it's a problem in deletion discussions. Bishonen | talk 13:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Cullen328. Clearly has enough significant coverage and accomplishments; misbehavior of supporter notwithstanding. Montanabw(talk) 07:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Vaikom Satyagraha. MBisanz talk 02:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venniyil Govinda Panicker

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

An unsourced, non-notable bio. Did not Prod as it was Prod'd as a non-English draft. Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it's because defamation causes harm to the subject. Hagiographies don't do that. I don't see any suitable CSD criterion that would apply here. Mduvekot (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neel Akash

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

PROD removed without explanation. Upon reviewing the sources, they're unreliable and primary. Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_September_24&oldid=1142617360"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 24, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.