< 18 April	20 April >

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. J04n(talk page) 13:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aryana Engineer[edit]

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

Individual only has two supporting acting roles, no awards or recognitions for her work, no evidence of contributing or affecting the entertainment industry in any way, and no major fan base (Facebook and Twitter accounts or random, unofficial fan sites do not necessarily merit notability). Clearly fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. While it is quite possible she may become more well known in the future if she continues acting, we cannot assume that under WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:RISING as it is also possible that she will suddenly quit acting because she hates it so much. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She had major roles in two big-budget films, which satisfies NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets notability, due to major roles in two big-budget films.HillbillyGoat (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been part of two big-budget films with major roles, meets WP:NACTOR. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:26, 21 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 13:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1988 Aeroflot Tu-134 accident[edit]

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

Article does not meet any of the WP:AIRCRASH criteria. Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:AIRCRASH generally speaks only about inclusion in airport, aircraft and airline articles. The accident involves the highest ever landing speed for an aircraft, a fact which is sourced to verifiable reference. As such the article meets WP:GNG in my view. Brandmeister^talk 23:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is based on two sources, of which one –the most used throughout the page– is a dead link.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As per WP:AFD it's the existence of sources that count towards notability, not that there's a "dead link" to one in a Wikipeida article.--Oakshade (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've marked the article because it fails the three criteria mentioned in WP:AIRCRASH, not because of the lack of sources.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That link still opens in my browser, don't know why it was marked as dead. Anyway the same information goes in the other reference. Brandmeister^talk 07:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed. I thought it was just Unicode gibberish—all the characters have accents?—but teh Google sayeth otherwise. I guess it just got transcribed wrong, or something, but the correct characters are still under there. Ignatz mice•talk 13:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is mislabeled, as its name gives the impression an accident happened, when this is a minor incident, at most: no injuries, no fatalities, no major damages to the aircraft involved. I don't see how this is notable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that exactly because there were no fatalities despite the unprecedented landing speed the event is particularly notable. Brandmeister^talk 14:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing happened" =/= notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: While not meeting WP:AIRCRASH is clear, are there any sources that would cause the accident to pass WP:GNG? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find English-language references, but the 2006 issue of Russian aviation magazine Vzlyot confirms the event: "31 декабря 1988 г. в аэропорту Одессы этот самолет установил неофициальный «мировой рекорд» скорости приземления летательных аппаратов - 415 км/ч, но, несмотря на это, оставался в эксплуатации еще долгое время" ("On December 31 1988 in Odessa airport that aircraft (Тu-134А) set the unofficial world record for landing speed among air vehicles - 415 km/h, but nonetheless [the aircraft] remained in service for a long time"). As such I think the event meets WP:GNG. Brandmeister^talk 17:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key word here is ″unofficial″. The article is based on a fact that hasn't been officially confirmed.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unofficial because due to obvious hazard it's not a good idea to set the landing speed records, especially on a passenger aircraft. As such no attempt to make it official was made. Brandmeister^talk 17:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, the speed values provided cannot be accepted as an actual occurrence.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are values, provided by verifiable reliable sources. Besides, there was an investigation of the event according to article's refs and measuring the aircraft's speed seems to be one of the key issues of the accident. Brandmeister^talk 18:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not express my thoughts correctly. You mentioned above that the record-breaking speed we're referring to is unofficial. Following this, what I meant to say is that, even though the speed values provided can be actual, the lack of an official confirmation for them entails that there's no point in keeping and article that is loosely based on unconfirmed facts.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being official is not a notability criterion. As I wrote above, the record wasn't submitted for third-party recognition apparently because it wasn't the case to be proud of, otherwise those guys would have been considered crazy on international level. The landing speed was most likely confirmed during domestic investigation, which may be considered as official recognition. The confirmation by two aviation-related online sources is sufficient in my view, although there may be more RS. Brandmeister^talk 19:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of "maybes" and WP:OR-ish speculation, but no cited facts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Landed fast, ran off the runway, was forgotten. No WP:PERSISTENCE, no significant changes to procedures, no fatalities, no apparent reliable sources confirming a hull loss. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're already counted as having !voted "delete" by your nomination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; the fact that the article is an orphan also points to non-notability (at least in my mind...) Ansh666 21:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The high landing speed is notable. I agree it doesn't really seem like an "accident"; change it to "incident" if you like. Ignatz mice•talk 23:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. Moreover, no official confirmation for these velocities.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That linked page is just an essay, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Brandmeister^talk 08:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point of the essay is to get people to give reasons for their vote apart from just the canned "it's notable" (or the opposite), which doesn't really help anyone understand why they think so. Ansh666 10:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:ONLYESSAY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a bad day at the office nothing of encyclopedic note. MilborneOne (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 13:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raising Kaine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

unsourced with no references to establish notability. nothing has improved since the last time it was nominated 4 years ago. Frietjes (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no sources except the blog itself, especially after four years, it very clearly does not meet notability and should be treated as strictly promotional (especially since none of the bloggers are notable either).HillbillyGoat (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , with the very substantial sources from the Washington Post found by Whpq at the previous afd: [1], [2], I don't know why they weren't added then, but they should be. I added them now . Even if people don't check the googles before nominating , they should at least check the previous AfDs . DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whether or not I agree with the content of the webpage that is the subject of this AfD the primary question of an AfD is "Is the subject notable, as Wikipedia defines notability?" To this I have to say that it is, see this coverage in this book. that clears the significant coverage criteria IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book was written by one of the blog's founders. It will do for objective facts about the blog, but not for its impact or anything. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has already been improved compared to when it was nominated, and the subject was an influential pioneer in netroots activism. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know why I didn't add the references from last time, but still a keep for me. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2013 (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 Austin Independent School District. J04n(talk page) 13:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Elementary School (Austin, Texas)[edit]

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

Per WP:N and tangentially, WP:NHS, elementary schools are not, unlike high schools, automatically assumed to be notable. This has no sources establishing notability, beyond being one of over 5200 schools to have received a "Blue Ribbon" award. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per well-established consensus, to Austin Independent School District. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, While Hill isn't historically notable, it has been included as an example of character education in a diverse student population using McGruff the Crime Dog Character education in America's blue ribbon schools: best practices for ..., p. PA93, at Google Books; see also page 174.
Lance Armstrong's book Lance Armstrong: Historic Six-Time Tour de France Champion, p. PA21, at Google Books has a picture of him in a classroom at Hill autographing shirts and posters.
A teacher at Hill is mentioned as an example of teachers who continually innovate their methods to maximize teaching effectiveness.Putting research to work in elementary physical education: conversations in ..., p. PA64, at Google Books
An issue of the Alcalde, The Alcalde, p. PA16, at Google Books, discussing an exhibition at the Huntington Art Gallery lists a Texas Exe's sculpture at the Hill Elementary School.
These references indicate that Hill is more prominent than the vast majority of elementary schools and meets the intent of WP:N.
SBaker43 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's a book actually about the school I'm not seeing anything that isn't considered trivial coverage. Mkdw ^talk 07:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austin Independent School District, the sources provided by SBaker do not seem like substantial coverage to me, since all of them discuss the school only incidentally to coverage of something else - the subject is not the school itself. Were we to build an article based only on what we find in those sources, we wouldn't end up with much. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Austin Independent School District per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. No strong assertion to notability outside outcomes. Mkdw ^talk 07:15, 26 April 2013 (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. G11, pure advertising. I am salting, as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muumuu House[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article (created by Audreyallendale (talk · contribs) an employee of Muumuu House) is one part of a massive Marketing campaign by Muumuu House using multiple WP:SPA advertising-only Sock accounts to exploit Wikipedia for promotional purposes. See WikiProject Spam report. Was speedied ~~four (4)~~ seven (7) times previously, including this page. Google shows nothing. Lacks any "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" (WP:GNG). Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Hu12 (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nomination. Grande (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. There's another three deletions at Muumuu house, which also needs to be salted. MER-C 10:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:16, 21 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 15:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FF Series[edit]

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

I am unable to find any reliable information about this racing series. It appears to be something based on Final Fantasy. Searching "FF Series" "Pepsi Cup" brings up some pages from another wiki but nothing substantial. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails verifiability. I found nothing that even verifies what this is. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any information on this. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2013 (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 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska, 2010#Candidates. Will leave the history in place in case anyone wants to merge any of it. J04n(talk page) 15:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Fisher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AFD was closed as "keep" when this person was a candidate for the Republican nomination for US House in Alaska in 2010. The basis for the "keep" decision was apparently that Fisher would be notable if he won the primary. He didn't, and nothing else in the article indicates that he's notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United States House of Representatives election in Alaska, 2010#Candidates_2. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and there doesn't quite seem to be sufficient coverage for WP:BIO, but there is enough information to be worth preserving. Ray^Talk 16:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives election in Alaska, 2010#Candidates 2 as directed by WP:POLOUTCOMES and User:RayAYang. Subject has received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources and thus passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. That being said the coverage is primarily regarding his attempted to run for a political office, and thus also falls under WP:BLP1E; therefore, per WP:POLOUTCOMES a redirect is the proper course of action.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Three-plus years in existence, and this article has flown so under the radar that there is not even a WP:BIOGRAPHY banner on its talk page, in spite of it being a biography article. There's probably just enough to be said about Fisher to place in the election article without overwhelming it. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 18:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I concur with merging/redirecting the article to the election page. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 15:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ona Brown[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable 3rd-party sources establishing that the subject meets WP:GNG. In addition, the article would require a fundamental re-write to prevent it reading essentially like a promotional piece or resumé. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if her father was the world's greatest motivational speaker as claimed, she's not notable simply by virtue of being his daughter, and I see no evidence that she's notable in her own right. All in all, it seems promotional to me. HillbillyGoat (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 199.168.146.146 (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)— 199.168.146.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, Google news has some dozens of article about other people named Ona Brown, mainly dating back to 1920s and 1930s, but almost anything about this one. The current sources are primary/unreliable. At best, she could possibly be mentioned in Leslie_C._Brown#Personal_life and redirected there. Cavarrone (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 15:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elden C. Bailey[edit]

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

No indication of notability, would CSD it but I found this which lists them as a member of the NY Philharmonic, which although not meeting GNG (?) at least shows they were of some note. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails notability criteria. 199.168.146.146 (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)— 199.168.146.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per the obituary in The New York Times.[3] Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The obit in the NY Times show he was a notable percussionist as they don't publish obits for nobodies. This is not a paid obit, as the NY Times also carried his paid obit as well. In addition to the obit, there is this Billboard capsule review calling out the percussion work, and this article identifies that works were composed with him playing in mind. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Times obituary, also here is another obituary. These plus the sources found by Whpq should be enough to establish notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That obituary is a submitted one and not one chosen through editorial selection. -- Whpq (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2013 (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. Good claims that are within policy are made by both sides, but I think it's obvious that there is no consensus to delete the article here. Thanks everyone for keeping it civil. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Dergoul[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT & WP:BLP1E Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Subject has received mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, that being said it could be argued that the subject has not received significant coverage in those mentions, it can be also argued that those multiple mentions if taken in total can add up to significant coverage. All that being said, I can see the short rational of this AfD that the subject is primarily notable for one event, that is his detention at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, therefore the subject falls under WP:BLP1E. As there is an article about those who fall within the same category of detention at Guantanamo Bay, the article content that can be verified to non-primary reliable sources should be merged into an appropriate target article, and a redirect left in this article space. As for the present state of the article, it appears to be a WP:SOAPBOX/WP:COATRACK do to its external links.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOAPBOX/WP:COATRACK -- I believe the official advice for contributors who think an article on a notable topic contains element of SOAPBOX or COATRACK is to articulate their concerns, rather than to argue for deletion. You acknowledged that there are a wealth of WP:Reliable sources, so is there a reason you aren't articulating your concerns? The article's talk page is a traditional place for this kind of concern. Geo Swan (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for merge and redirect is not based on my opinion on the external links on the subject of this AfD. Please do not confuse that as the basis of my reasoning. I agree that AfD is not the replacement for improving article content, but that doesn't mean that I cannot point it out. If this article survives AfD, hopefully someone more interested in the article will work on it.

That being said, the significant coverage that the subject has received is regarding a single event which was the detention of the subject at Guantanamo Bay (this includes his apprehension, detention, and release). Therefore, the subject falls under WP:BLP1E, as BLP1E subscribes, if the subject is notable for one event, the biography of the subject should be redirected to that event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You left your first comment on April 20th. In your comment above you suggest the article should be rewritten -- apparently without noticing the article has been rewritten. On April 22nd I made over 2 dozen edits to the article, adding other events, and expanding it almost nine-fold. Your comment above followed almost a day after my last edit.

Many people temporarily add articles to their watchlist, when they choose to comment on the that article's ((afd)). That way they are aware of changes to the article that might affect their position or call for further comment. Have you ever considered following this practice? Geo Swan (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per RightCowLeftCoast - this person's only potential notability is for one event so WP:BLP1E applies. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WRT one event -- I refreshed my memory of WP:ONEEVENT & WP:BLP1E, and I believe the nominator is misinterpreting the advice found there. They address individuals whose coverage is a "flash in the pan", for whom we know only one notable thing -- their involvement in that event. I don't agree that Tarek Dergoul's lifestory is an instance of a BLP1E.

I disagree with the assertion above that Dergoul was so similar to the other captives that his story can be shoehorned into Guantanamo Bay detention camp -- or any other existing article.

I added new material on Dergoul's first interview from May 2004. He offered that interview when the USA was still massively shamed by the trophy photos snapped, and traded, by a ring of torture-porn sadists at the Abu Ghraib. While a few other captives had described conditions for the captives as being brutal, and had described the camp's riot squads being used to administer brutal beatings for trivial reason, rather than to keep order, he was the first captive to assert that each riot squad had a team member assigned to carry a video camera and to record each use of the riot squad.

DoD authorities confirmed that every use of the riot squad was recorded -- for review by senior officers. They said the recordings were all archived.

As the new section describes Senator Patrick Leahy, a senior member of the Senate Judicial Committee, reacted to the information from Dergoul's interview, and called for those recordings to be made available to his committee.

Two months later the camp commandant appeared to testify before the committee about the recordings first described by Dergoul. Coverage of the commandant's appearance also covered Dergoul's role.

I suggest that meaningful interpretations BLP1E would classify his first interview, and its after-effects are a separate event. Is triggering a Senate Committee subpoena for someone make an individual notable? Well, since actually testifying before Congress doesn't make an individual notable, all by itself, it is only a factor that adds to an individual notability. But I don't think there is any question that this is a separate event.

As one of the first captives to be freed Dergoul was sought out for interviews, and legal scholars and human rights workers have cited, quoted, or summarized the abuse Dergoul described dozens or hundreds of times. I suggest this too places him among the more notable former captives.

I added a section about a 2011 event that ended up with Dergoul being sentenced to a one year suspended sentence. He attacked a parking official that had just given his car a parking ticket when his parking meter expired. Normally an individual's parking violation would not merit mention coverage here. But Dergoul didn't just dispute the ticket. He attacked the parking attendant. And, during his trial, he interrupted the parking official's testimony, yelling at him from the prisoner's dock. Finally, Benjamin Wittes, a senior and influential commentator on counter-terrorism commented on the event. Wittes, who is an WP:RS, tied Dergoul's conviction to the debate over Guantanamo recidivism. I thought that was worthy of mention, and made this a separate event.

I see his attempt to sue the UK government over his claim MI5 and MI6 were complicit in his abuse as one of the additional separate events. Geo Swan (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep As User:RightCowLeftCoast noted, Tarek Dergoul is widely covered in WP:Reliable sources. RightCowLeftCoast is incorrect however to assert that none of those reliable sources cover him in significant detail, as multiple journalist published articles or interviews that are devoted entirely or almost entirely to covering his story. Andy Worthington, the author of The Guantanamo Files covers Dergoul in five separate chapters. Further, he covered new information about Dergoul, as it emerged, in online appendixes to his book -- the August 2nd, 2011 appendix devotes a dozen paragraphs to him. Further, while other reliable sources do not cover him in significant detail they cover different aspects of his story. Which refutes the assertion that Dergoul is an instance of a BLP1E.

Those different aspects of his story include:

His interview that revealed that the riot squad recorded all its actions triggered a Senate subpoena for the camp commandant to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee;
His accounts of that his toe became infected because his interrogators directed antibiotics be withheld from him has been widely repeated by legal and human rights experts;
His accounts that when a doctor finally looked at his toe, and decided it was too late to treat it, and it had to be amputated, he chose to amputate it without pain killers has been widely repeated;
His accounts that two of the men who the DoD claimed committed suicide had cells near him, that he knew them well, and that he did not believe they would ever commit suicide has been widely repeated;
His account that it was well known that British intelligence provided an individual from Morocco to serve as a mole in Bagram confirms Binyam Mohammed's claim that the justification the USA used to subject him to an extraordinary rendition to Morocco was that a Moroccan mole within Bagram falsely denounced him;
The conditional sentence and mental health assessment imposed on him after he attacked a parking official who took a picture of him;
He was the first UK resident to sue the UK government based on claims that MI5 and MI6 were intimately involved in his US detention and interrogation;
His account that it took him five years to get government assistance, even though he was an amputee, is, I believe, would not belong in an article on the camp, since it happened after his repatriation.

I am frankly concerned that the concerns of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:COATRACK, WP:SOAPBOX really reflect what WP:ATA characterizes as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AGF and all that -- I trust this is an unconscious bias. But the key thing here is not whether or not we personally believe or doubt Mr Dergoul's claims. What really counts is the extent to which those claims are covered in WP:RS. The claims are extensively repeated in WP:RS. I am not totally unsympathetic to those who are skeptical of Mr Dergoul's claims. There are lots of times when I have been skeptical of the claims in all the RS on a topic. When I find myself in that position I grit my teeth, and do my best to comply with WP:NPOV and all other policies, when I use those RS. I encourage the challengers to this article to follow my example.

As per WP:NPOV this article should be written from the point of view that we don't know whether his claims are credible. We should always make clear who said what. If there were scholarly works that challenged Dergoul's credibility, we should quote them too, as per WP:UNDUE. I honestly haven't come across any, however. As per WP:UNDUE, if the DoD, or any other organ of the US government had ever offered a specific justification for the suspicion it bore Dergoul, that too should be included, but I honestly haven't come across any of those, either. I encourage contributors who have concerns about this article to raise them on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've thought about this for a bit now, and as the editors above responding to this AfD generally agree, there is coverage in RSs, which is what we look for, and to me the coverage appears to be appropriately sufficient. So this qualifies under GNG, in my view. It is also not limited to temporary coverage, so that argument falls by the wayside. And as to any editing comments ... as always, that is a subject for normal editing, and not a matter for AfD. And I don't see this as fitting neatly into BLP1E either, as it is not just an event of one moment committed by a minor player.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to ~~Moroccan detainees at Guantanamo Bay~~British detainees at Guantanamo Bay - while there is indeed coverage over a period of time (as Epeefleche notes), it is all for the same thing: his detention at Gitmo. Outside of that detention, he is not notable, and therfore he should be covered as part of the subject, not independently. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me, but why would we merge this article to Moroccan detainees at Guantanamo Bay -- when Tarek Dergoul was a citizen of the United Kingdom? Geo Swan (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Brain burp, thanks for the catch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continuing coverage in major sources. Not really one event. I have sometimes supported merging some of the individual articles, but this one is sufficiently distinctive to keep. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep — I've browsed the sources and there are certainly enough reliable ones to justify this having its own article. Further, not only is the nominator wrong about the criteria he's using to justify a deletion, but the criteria actually supports having a separate article for this individual. Here's why:

BLP1E states:

"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." — I'm at a loss as to what the "one event" is in the nominator's mind? The War in Afghanistan? His capture? The Guantanamo detention? None of these would sensibly qualify as a singular event, especially since much of the article is dedicated to cataloging the reliable sources covering Dergoul's post-Guantanamo life.
"If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." — Being that Dergoul's post-Guantanamo life has been covered by news organizations, there's no way we can call him a "low-profile individual" outside of whatever event the nominator had in mind.
"[If] It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." — Both the significance of the event (whatever the nominator had in mind) and the "substantial and well-documented" coverage of Dergoul's life take care of this point.

Now, let's look at ONEEVENT:

"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." — If we take the "one event" to be the Guantanamo Bay detention, it's hard to argue that there's a bigger role to play in a prison than prisoner—it's the role that defines the locale. If the one event is this man's capture, the same applies. There might be an argument that the capture is not a significant event, but the article's sources cover much more than the capture and the immediate consequences. And if we somehow twist our reason to say that the War in Afghanistan is "one event," we should remember another passage from ONEEVENT: "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles." -- Veggies (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW -- Over the last 57 months the Tarek Dergoul article averaged 105 reads per month. Geo Swan (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although mentioned in RS the subject spears to lack "significant coverage" and is therefore not notable under WP:GNG regardless of long lists of his "claims" as presented above and regardless of the worthiness or otherwise people might ascribe to them being presented in mainstream media. Wikipedia is not Amnesty International. What little of value in this article is rightly already covered in numerous articles on the subject of Guantanamo Bay and the issues which surround it. No need for the subject to have his own article. Anotherclown (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our personal notion of whether an individual's account of himself or herself is credible is irrelevant to whether they are notable. It is coverage in WP:Reliable sources that makes an individual notable. To voice a delete because one has personal doubts over what reliable sources have written about a topic is a classic lapse from WP:NPOV and a classic instance of what the WP:Arguments to avoid advice calls an "I don't like it" argument.
It is true that wikipedia is not Amnesty International, so no one here should be advocating for Dergoul's right, just as no one should be advocating that Dergoul's claims are not credible, and that those who detained him and interrogated him did not do the things he claimed.
To cover the documented and repeated fact that Dergoul was the first individual to sue the UK government for complicity in his detention and interrogation, for instance, is not advocacy. This section of the article needs expansion. Maybe there are RS that cover this case that have made substantive points challenging Dergoul's credibility? If they are out there, and any of us find them, we should include them, and cover them neutrally, and with proper attribution. Please, feel free to go look for them.

I think what I have written complied with NPOV, and our other policies. But, if you disagree, I encourage you to explain your concern on the talk page.

Sorry, but to assert that Dergoul is merely "mentioned" in RS is to ignore those RS that have covered him in detail. I call on you to be specific -- exactly what details of Dergoul's life do you think are required, that we haven't already covered? Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply: I count at least (a) his detention and (b) his suing the UK government. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources, even if their sources may not be reliable. That's why we prefer third party sources! —me_and 19:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person clearly meets GNG. The argument is whether each event such as his imprisonment, release, and subsequent outspoken views on the matter are considered one event or whether they are a series of related events. I have a hard time believing anyone would call his imprisonment and his subsequent activism a single event. They are two closely related but ultimately separate things. If you wrote a book about him they would be separated by chapters. If they were truly one event they would be in the same chapter. Arguably you could even write two books, one imprisonment and the other his activism and no one would argue they're both covering the same thing. The fact that he has maintained coverage after imprisonment seems to suggest enduring notability. Mkdw ^talk 07:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article's subject meets WP:GNG. Miniapolis 19:23, 30 April 2013 (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. G5 - created by a block-evading sock. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transdev York Unibus route 44[edit]

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

per WP:NOTGUIDE, past routes, reg lists, All this info can no doubt be found on Google/Flickr. –
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the fleet list; there may still be other unnecessary or unverifiable information in the article. There's some coverage at busandcoach.com[4][5] and the local newspaper (York Press)[6][7][www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8420074.University_snub_to_flagship_ftr_bus/], and this isn't obviously non-notable unlike most bus routes. Peter James (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The creator is a sock of blocked user Josh24B so the article can be speedy deleted as soon as that is proved at the SPI now open.--Charles (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to Transdev Harrogate & District route 36 this has the fleet on so otherwise I had but it on due to using bus spotters to confirm fleet numbers and Flickr as this has them on, I have recently looked at a change of Bus stop but not necessary to add any information about it on this page, also I am aware of the Josh24B socks due to nearly any Travel information page having it on but, I have all sourced in formation unless it is not necessary to add it on as It has been mentioned to me. BOT823 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2013 (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 Surgical incision. Will leave the history in place in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 15:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cruciate incision[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 19:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to surgical incision, maybe? That article itself needs a huge load of work anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's sensible. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 00:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 15:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umberto Marin[edit]

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

No indication of notability and no sources. For aristocratic titles our usual approach is to have an article on the title where the individual title holders can be mentioned. The individuals themselves only get an article if they have done something notable besides choosing the right parents per WP:INHERIT. Spinning Spark 19:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated Marin Family which has even less claim to notability. Spinning Spark 08:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with your comments. --JetBlast (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no sources listed, and even a Google search shows nothing about his nobility claim beyond this entry, the truth is that we have no way of knowing if he's even a real nobleman. Even if he is, though, he still appears to have done nothing notable enough to merit an encyclopedia entry. HillbillyGoat (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 15:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Family[edit]

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

I had previously speedy deleted this A7 but it was fairly quickly created again. No indication of notability for this family and no sources. For aristocratic titles our usual approach is to have an article on the title where the individual title holders can be mentioned. The individuals themselves only get an article if they have done something notable besides choosing the right parents per WP:INHERIT. Even less reason to have an article on the family of that individual. Also nominating Umberto Marin. Spinning Spark 19:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Notable relatives do not confer notability. ^King Jakob _C2 20:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A not notable Italian family.A family with some noble ancerstors.Italy now is a repubblic and following the Italian Costitution the title like Count can be used only as a part of the name and only if the title was awarded before 1922 is that hte case?In Italy now no person is titled lady or not due to his or her family background.User:Lucifero4

Delete Notability is not a genetic trait, so with no sources and no reason to believe that anyone named is notable of their own accord, there's no reason to keep it. HillbillyGoat (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is completely unsourced and does not establish that this family is notable enough to warrant an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Family Ties episodes. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Family Ties (season 4)[edit]

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

Also

For the same reasons as here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/All_in_the_Family_(season_1). Duplicates article List of Family Ties episodes JetBlast (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to List of Family Ties episodes. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons that the All in the Family seasons were. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:13, 23 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ellylldan[edit]

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

The article was previously deleted through proposed deletion, by myself. Later, an editor requested that the article be restored. I agreed to do so, but warned him that I would be bringing it to AfD immediately. There are no references to this article in any reliable sources, only pages like Myspace, Facebook, an entry on Last.fm (which merely shows that people have listened to the music), etc. Does not come close to meeting musician notability. -- Atama頭 16:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article about a contemporary musical project. A search for sources shows that an article about a mythological goblin of the same name may be justified. This topic doesn't seem to be notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-made promotional pages on social networking sites (MySpace, Facebook, Last.FM, etc) do not establish notability. HillbillyGoat (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage whatsoever in independent reliable sources. For that matter, I really can't find any coverage in independent unreliable sources either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:31, 23 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STEMIONICS[edit]

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

Appears to be the original research of one individual. Google search comes up with 43 results, and none in Google Scholar. ... discospinster _talk 16:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable sources; there are no books, news stories or peer reviewed articles discussing this theory in depth. As evidenced by by the few Google hits and no GScholar hits, this is a fringe theory, per WP:FRINGE, in the sense that it lies outside the mainstream of science and has few adherents. As the article seems to have been created by the same author of the theory, this article is also original research, per WP:OR. The topic falls below notability thresholds, per WP:GNG, suggesting that the article cannot survive on Wikipedia. --Mark viking (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of one person's PhD thesis is not enough to create an article.Martin451 (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:32, 23 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lalić[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Re-nominating as Sasata's nomination had technical problems.

Sasata's rationale was: Subject does not meet the notability criteria, as he has not been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The rationale for the non-delete closure of the previous AfD was the socking issue; hopefully that won't be a problem here.

I agree, and would add that Lalić is a long, long way from being notable as a player, even considering his age (a quick look here indicates he's #1079 in the world among players born in 1994 or later.) His contributions to magazines and websites don't help his case much, as he clearly fails WP:AUTHOR. There are 13 sources in the article (counting one dead link), but the few that meet WP:RS and are independent of him only contain trivial or routine coverage.

Finally, notability is not inherited from one's parents. Sideways713 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sasata and nominator. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough at this time. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete comes well short of meeting any notability standards in his fields. --SubSeven (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I personally think it's too early to recognize Peter Lalic as notable. I seriously doubt, if it weren't for his name and famous parents, that the world outside of the UK would know much or anything about him. It could only be through his regular monthly CHESS column, which is decent enough, but has only a kind of 'bits and pieces' type content that most strong club chess players could put together with a bit of application. Hence, if he is to justify an article, then I would say he needs to have his books/writings highly acclaimed in some sense, and/or gain the IM title (not just the FM title), or train a very successful player, if coaching is a route he pursues. Right now, I'm not sure he knows himself which activity he wishes to specialize in and we will only find out with the passage of time. As a long-time editor here, I am only applying the criteria that we have always used as a rule of thumb, and that is, (1) minimum GM title or (2) IM title with notable skills in some other chess-related activity. Clearly, there will be some exceptions (where someone has no chess title but is a leading figure in their field, e.g. the current FIDE President); however, right now I would put him in a category that is aspiring to meet the second criteria above, and he is not there yet. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur w/ others. The article comes off as promotional. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per other arguments here and on previous attempt to delete. Mendoza2909 (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note should be taken of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lalić (2nd nomination). I started off closing that as moot because it seemed to point to a nonexistent article, only to find out that the name of the article in the nomination was misformed. I reopened it, but this one had begun already. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A rating of 2131 is a strong player, but well below the level where one would be considered even semi-professional. I agree mostly with Brittle heaven's rules of thumb, although I would probably be a bit more liberal with acceptiong exceptions. (I think international youth champions and national champions are notable, even if the country is small and the player is in the 2100 rating range, even though they are arfuably less notable than FIDE presidents.) But in this case I see no really persuasive reason to make an exception. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We also have Bogdan Lalić, whose notability seems reasonably secure; also Susan Lalic, whose notability seems substantially less so. Dad's article seems a plausible merge and redirect candidate for both of them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 07:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bogdan Lalić is a chess grandmaster; Peter Lalić is currently significantly below grandmaster level at chess. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I understand that. Bogdan Lalić is clearly notable. He has a chess-playing ex-wife (Susan Lalic) who is likely notable herself, and the mother of his son, the chess player in this article. What I would suggest is that Son's article be smerged and redirected into a section on clearly notable Dad's family; he has made something of a chess dynasty; and it isn't impossible that Son will not go on to become independently notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable for chess and no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN, GNG. As we said back in the day, this smacks of vanispamcuftisement. Miami Airline Pilot75 (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stricken as Miami Airline Pilot75 has stated that he is a sock of the indefblocked Bunkerdiver (in itself a sock). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certain keep I think that it's a shame whenever pages are deleted from Wikipedia. This encyclopedia should be as comprehensive as possible, and we should be thankful for any extra information (especially written as clearly, objectively, and with so many references as this article). Deleting factual information is just a waste of people's time. It is true that this person is not a notable worldwide player. However, within England, he evidently makes big contributions to the game: writing, coaching, representing his country, etc. It is obvious that he is going places, and has already made a name for himself in his country, so we should keep the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.44.109 (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Upon a closer inspection the sources on this article are very dubious. While I think Wikipedia should be comprehensive and diverse, if someone is not notable, no matter how well written you think that article may be, it does not belong on an Encyclopedia, and could be placed in a Chess wiki that has different inclusion criteria. This could have maybe been a snow delete. Mkdw ^talk 07:24, 26 April 2013 (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. ^King Jakob _C2 14:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

St._Sukie_de_la_Croix[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Sukie de la Croix

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

Original research. Notability not established per Wikipedia:BIO DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm seeing a few mainstream RS references for this guy, including a fairly significant Chicago Sun Times article. I think this guy probably meets notability requirements. The article does obviously have problems though, and this could be a potential candidate for a clean up delete per WP:TNT. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am not sure how notable his awards are, but I think he passes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage here. — Cirt (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don;t believe that's correct. Of the 6 soruces cited, 1 is original research and 4 are the subject's own book. DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but start over per NickCT, WP:TNT. Much of the current article violates WP:NOTRESUME and WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability seems to hang on him being author of one book (which does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). Per Wikipedia:Notability (people) there is not significant coverage in secondary sources. The majority of citations are an interview conducted by the page author and therefore Wikipedia:Original research. The two awards cited are very localised to the subject's location and community, and not widely notable. I would support a re-write, but can notability be established? DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree—there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject. Most references are related the book he wrote, but reviewing WP:AUTHOR, he doesn't meet the criteria for notability. Before voting, I would be curious to hear what those who elected to 'keep' are thinking. TheBlueCanoe 22:28, 26 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Interest Paradigm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Economic Interest Paradigm

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

OR, Neologism, no references Bhny (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is not about an economic concept. It is someone's "original" economic "research"... i.e. someone's personal theory that they think "deserves to be out there" but is not discussed in any reliable sources. Yaris678 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a google book search give two usages of the phrase which is the title of the subject of this AfD I have not found any significant coverage in non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject fails WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2013 (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 Prague. Will leave the history in place so anyone can merge any of it to whatever page#section they feel is most appropriate. J04n(talk page) 17:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prague tourism[edit]

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

Promotional article on Prague which reads like a guidebook not an encyclopedia. May have a place on Wikitravel but not on Wikipedia. According to the talk page, it was written by an official tourist organisation. Lincolnite (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just another imperfect start to a notable topic. I have reduced it to a stub based upon a reasonable source. It would probably be sensible to merge into Tourism in the Czech Republic, following the source. Warden (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Arguably this could be expanded into a decent article. However, as it stands after editing by Warden, only one small fact from the article is not already mentioned at Prague#Main sights. That fact is "more than half the visitors to the Czech Republic stay there". This is could go in Prague#Economy next to "Almost one-half of the national income from tourism is spent in Prague." I'm inclined to say merge... but if someone wants to come along later and create a bigger article I have no objections to them doing that (assuming it is more like an encyclopedia article than the version before Warden edited it). Yaris678 (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as suggested above or move to/rename Tourism in Prague to make it clear we are talking about the idea, rather than an organisation tasked with promoting said idea (which is actually made clear in the first line). But the latter should only be done if someone plans to expand it. Can always be split out later after all. Stalwart111 00:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into and redirect to relevant sections of Prague until someone decides to (massively) expand. Ansh666 21:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevant sections? Yes there is more than one relevant section of Prague... but how can you redirect to more than one section? Yaris678 (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I meant whichever one whoever does it thinks is most appropriate. But maybe we should propose a multiple-redirect, which reads the user's mind and chooses where to go...(joking, of course!) Ansh666 10:44, 25 April 2013 (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 The Wallflowers. Will leave the history in place in case anyone wants to merge any of it. J04n(talk page) 17:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Richling[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography for musician whose career hasn't achieved notability beyond being in the Wallflowers. WP:BAND --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least this should be Merged to The Wallflowers leaving a redirect. There's plenty of coverage of Richling's work with that band and several sources with content about the man himself, e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. While the article as it stands is pretty awful and little more than a list of credits, I simply can't understand why anyone would think the best outcome here is simply to delete the article. --Michig (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Michig that the suggestion to delete this article is an unreasonable suggestion. According to Wikipedia, "Deletion happens when a page is unsuitable, unhelpful, or does not meet the required criteria." This page is suitable and helpful. It provides information that is not available elsewhere (despite contrary claims); in fact the information was recently used by the Dallas Observer in an interview conducted with Richling (^[1]). Furthermore, the claim that the article should merely be collapsed and included on The Wallflowers page reveals a restricted view of Mr. Richling, whose credits and experiences extend beyond his work with The Wallflowers and includes Norway's Big Bang, Pearl Jam, Joe Henry, and notable other musicians. User:Kalliope M (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you put in an edit summary, "Greg would appreciate it if this page stays this way", it implies you have a conflict of interest in this matter. Secondly, articles on Wikipedia depend on independent coverage from reliable sources to assert the notability of the topic. If this article "provides information that is not available elsewhere", that would constitute original research. This article needs to at least meet basic notability requirements for biographies or otherwise be redirected to The Wallflowers. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not a conflict of interest at all because that denotes that the information provided in some way undermines "the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia." In fact, the entry enhances Wikipedia's purpose because it provides neutral, reliable, unique, independent information that isn't available elsewhere. Based on the editing histories of this page, the person insisting that the page be deleted is the person who consistently eliminates the unique/substantial information and discusses the entry only in terms of his relationship to the band, and to one band member in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KalliopeM (talk • contribs) 03:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Delete the page? It's cutting off one's nose to spite one's face! It would be nice to have some additional background or personal information about Richling, the article is helpful for a number of reasons including understanding networks and influences. I read that Dallas Observer article and came to the Wikipedia page to see about the Pearl Jam credit he talked about! Deleting it is a bad solution because this information isn't compiled like this elsewhere. I have been a long time fan of the Wallflowers and everyone who is a fan knows that he prefers to talk about his work and have it speak for him. It makes sense that he would like his information presented this way. This page clearly fits the aim of Wikipedia, "to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia." It's helpful! EasyJumpDriver 16 April 2013
Redirect to The Wallflowers, subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources however none of the reliable sources that I have found give significant coverage to the subject; therefore the subject fails WP:ANYBIO. That being said the subject was a member of a notable band, therefore per WP:OUTCOMES#Music a redirect to that notable band would be in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth noting that the article started out life as exactly that redirect. Uncle G (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Wallflowers. I don't think he meets notability by himself, since even interviews with titles touting his musical "pedigree" contain almost exclusively questions about The Wallflowers. However, I do think the information in this entry is worth preserving, since he did contribute (albeit in a very limited manner) to far more notable bands, like Pearl Jam. HillbillyGoat (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2013 (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 reclosed as moot, b/c now there is a well formed 3d nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lalić (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the notability criteria, as he has not been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The rationale for the non-delete closure of the previous AfD was the socking issue; hopefully that won't be a problem here. Sasata (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southwind Vineyard & Winery[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet criteria for notability. Local winery, no significant coverage in independent media. Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This winery is discussed in Sal Westrich's New Jersey Wine, and there have been a number of articles about it in regional newspapers and magazines. I'm not done writing the article yet, but I will attach the additional references. The business notability standard states that "evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Besides the Westrich book, Southwind Vineyard is discussed in The Press of Atlantic City, South Jersey Times, and Edible Jersey. DavidinNJ (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources here and the addition of the material described above will further improve the article with references that further demonstrate notability. New Jersey is not the first state most people think of when fine wines come to mind, but a winery on three acres producing 600 cases a year is probably approaching the lower threshold of notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Oppose Deletion mentioned in books, mentioned in several regional newspapers--which meets the notability requirements of WP:CORP.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:CORP, it is frequently discussed in both local and national media. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Large keep. This winery is indeed notable, passes criteria due to it featured in various independent news media sources. I strongly disagree with nominator. Tinton5 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2013 (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 seaQuest DSV. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Earth Oceans Organization[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional government. GrapedApe (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with seaQuest DSV - it clearly does not qualify for its own article, but is a critical part of the series' plot. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge United_Earth_Oceans_Organization#Background to seaQuest DSV and redirect to same. Real-life production section seems relevant; the rest is trivial, even inside the fictional universe (i.e. the group didn't get too much concerted attention even within the show). --EEMIV (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per EEMIV and hmssolent. —me_and 19:24, 29 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Hanim[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. (Article tagged for notability for over two years.) There is only one source, which barely mentions Liza Hanim. A PROD was contested in 2009, by an editor who said he would add sources, but never did. A Google search produces this Wikipedia article, YouTube, FaceBook, a site that lists lyrics, artist promotion sites, etc etc, but nothing that could be regarded as coverage in a reliable independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nothing on G that would be worth as reliable sources, article has languished for nearly 4 years relying on a single source that would be inadequate to pass WP:MUSIC. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 11:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is also on the Spanish and Malay Wikipedias. The Spanish one is very similar and has the same single source. The Malay one is bigger but has no sources. The Malay Wikipedia also has 9 articles covering some of her albums. These are also unsourced. Anyone know any Spanish or Malay? If, as seems likely, we decide to delete this article, it might be worth highlighting these articles to our sister projects. Yaris678 (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish article is a straight translation of the English one. The text of the Malaysian article is actually shorter than the English one, and it only looks longer because more space is given to the discography, and there are things like a list of awards she entered for but didn't win. The article actually does less than the English one at suggesting that she is significant. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 108.12.134.72 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found this website, although it doesn't appear to be significant. Unfortunately, other than that, I couldn't find much else. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreate if someone finds enough reliable sources to support any assertion this singer meets WP:ENT. Mkdw ^talk 07:12, 26 April 2013 (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. Bad-faith nomination by sockpuppet of indef'd editor; this batch of Survivor AfDs is irreversably tainted by socking/trolling. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Sheppard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a survivor contestant that lacks notability outside the show. Waveword2 (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)— Waveword2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closer: the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:BuickCenturyDriver. Cavarrone (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep We've been through this. Not to sound harsh, but did you even read the article? It clearly states that outside the show this United States Army veteran (who apparently recieved an honorable discharge and the second highest medal given during peacetime) is the inspiration and persona for a 2013 novel and this fact is referenced. The book has sold well internationally and the software company CEO also participates in many charity events. Aside from that, he is far more than just a regular contestant as he has appeared not once, but twice in two seperate seasons that were two years apart. In his first season, he was a second place finalist and he set a record for number of votes cast against him in a season.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note The previous deletion nomination was a failure. The only difference between now and then is that Sheppard has appeared in more episodes and the book has sold many more copies. He therefore could only be even more notable if anything, than he was the first time this was nominated.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep, notability has not decreased since the last nomination. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.244.108 (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC) — 98.207.244.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Another non-notable Survivor contestant. Subjects article focuses on his performance on the show. SurvivorFanHH (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)— SurvivorFanHH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strike vote by a blocked sockpuppet. Cavarrone (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article also references the book which unlike last time has now sold well internationally and the fact that he is a United States Army veteran, but of course, who actually reads the article properly before Ivoting?--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 199.168.146.146 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)— 199.168.146.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. That page might help you in future. Per nom doesn't really contribute anything because these discussions are based on the value of the points, not majority votes.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Not a one time reality star, part of multiple seasons. The other reasons were mentioned above. 178.249.123.209 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has not changed since previous AFD, discussion marred by sockpuppets of banned editors.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:DENY, the nominator is a sockpuppet and has been blocked, and the whole afd is marred by bunch of sockpuppets, the only valid votes are keep. Cavarrone (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wong[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Sources are all first party or youtube. Article also goes hand in hand with the spamming of articles to promote his book. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 11:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough secondaries out there to sufficiently pass WP:AUTHOR, overuse of peacock terms. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 11:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. 199.168.146.146 (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)— 199.168.146.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Numerous issues but the most concerning a lack of reliable sources to meet GNG. Mkdw ^talk 07:11, 26 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Competent Crew[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Worthy of a sentence in the Royal Yacht Association article and nothing more. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose This is an internationally renowned course held in hundreds of centres worldwide and is the chief course for beginners in yachting in the UK, and one of the main courses worldwide.--File Éireann 02:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is clearly notable: several hundred references in Google books for "Compentent Crew" RYA. And it is widely taught, and important even outside the UK. The same arguments apply to other RYA qualifications, some currently redlinked in the article, but Coastal Skipper and Yachtmaster exist. What's needed is for these various qualifications and courses to be a bit more unified and interlinked, especially from the RYA page. I could imagine a List of sailing certifications page, or even a navbox that could do this. Mcewan (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:55, 19 April 2013 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bascombe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Bio focusing primarily on one event several years ago. Probably fails WP:BLP1E, and I am not sure he meets general notability guidelines (for writers, or otherwise). Lots of trivial/passing mentions - but no real biographical coverage. I'm unsure where we could move/merge the content so suggestions for that would be useful. Errant ^(chat!) 09:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the previous Afd was withdrawn because consensus seemed to point to WP:AUTHOR for ghostwriting Jamie Carragher's autobiography [16] and being one of a number of co-authors that compiled a 'best of' Liverpool team sheet [17]. I don't believe he does pass WP:AUTHOR on the above evidence, nor as a journalist and his other claim to fame, switching employers, fails WP:BLP1E. Funny ^Pika! 18:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the previous nomination was withdrawn (by me!) not because he met WP:NAUTHOR, but because he met WP:GNG and consensus was clearly in agreement. Giant Snowman 10:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see anything other than WP:BLP1E here. Looking through the article's history, interesting to note that there are three SPAs (Paulawoosey (talk · contribs), Edgar Baron (talk · contribs) and Alistair daniel (talk · contribs)) two of which made attempts to remove the information that he was threatened after moving to the NotW. Draw your own conclusions. Number 5 7 16:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting - one of those editors is the subject himself. Giant Snowman 16:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple awards, mentioned in competing newspapers, [18] cited by The New York Times, mentioned in a bunch of sports autobiographies etc. Meets notability AFAICT. I reduced the weirdness in the article, however. Collect (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
""Delete"" One of those editing is indeed the subject himself who has noted the ceaseless editing of the page to create a negative slant and believes its initial creation was designed to cause professional embarrassment and emphasise a subjective position on a complex topic surrounding a change in employment – it is quite ludicrous that a page is considered notable on such a flimsy premise. The continued debate on notability merely underlines the view this should be deleted to prevent ongoing vandalism and highly selective use of material creating an incomplete and – as Collect has already noted – weird biography which is not really a biography in any fair or true sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgar Baron (talk • contribs) 09:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC) — Edgar Baron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just don't understand. What's the BLP1E? He's a journalist who passes GNG. One of his career moves has been questioned, big deal. So long as the coverage of the criticism isn't undue, it's fine, and if it isn't, that's a reason for editing, not deleting. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep felt he was notable the last time around and not seeing any change to that.Blethering Scot 13:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the conclusions last time this article was AFDd, less than a year ago - he passes GNG. A multi-award winning national journalist and writer, whose move from the Liverpool Echo to The News of The World is of also interest in the context of the boycott of The Sun and News of the World in Liverpool and was the subject of various press coverage. Article in need of improvement - doesn't explain why move to News of the World was controversial. Also, gives the impression that the Guardian, rather than one of its writers offered its support Petepetepetepete (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I'm not convinced the awards are noteworthy. It looks like they're regional industry awards. The apparent 1E was a combo of the threats and job move, which were reported. I'm having a great deal of trouble identifying reliable and substantial biographical coverage of this person, beyond the threats and job move. JFHJr (㊟) 19:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As well as WP:BLP1E, WP:BIODEL also applies, since he is relatively unknown. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bascombe is discussed in the autobiographies of Steven Gerrard and Robbie Fowler. In Fowler's autobiography, Fowler makes reference to Bascombe being used by Gerard Houlier to author unfavourable articles and ratings to back Houlier's transfer strategy. The excerpt is freely available on google books and is also reference in the following article from the guardian, which also mentions bascombe by name http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/sep/04/features.sport -- In Gerrard's autobiography, Gerrard describes Bascombe as one of the two press people he trusts and says he asked Bascombe to confirm whether quotes in the press made by Houlier were accurate. This side of Bascombe's career, whislt written about in best-selling autobiographies is not mentioned in this article and suggests the article is in need of improvement and expansion, rather than deletion. Petepetepetepete (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ANmFyoITK_EC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=chris+bascombe+trust+gerrard+autobiography&source=bl&ots=6Hcgod7qTy&sig=_Uk5pUkylztqWd7_JYFiPxijGJs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D1V4Udq5OaaO0AXhp4CgDQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=chris%20bascombe%20trust%20gerrard%20autobiography&f=false is the quote from Gerrard's autobiography.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3g4RQjoLLyEC&pg=PA267&dq=chris+bascombe+fowler+autobiography&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VlV4UevKHKms0QWoqYDwBw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA is the quote from Fowler's. Further confirms him as passing GNG, to my mind. Petepetepetepete (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNG specifically asks for significant coverage - trivial references don't meet that, I feel. No source has been presented that aptly encompasses Bascombe's career in a notable fashion. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial references? Fowler writes that Houlier manipulated his relationship with Bascombe as part of a strategy to enable him to be transfer Fowler from the club without angering the fans... Inidicating Bascombe was a key player in the relationship between manager, players and fans, at least during his time at the Liverpool Echo. Certainly evidence against WP:BLP1E, when you add to this the controversy of his move to NOTW, ghost writing of Carragher's autobiography and number of awards won. Whilst it's only a passing reference in Gerrard's autobiography, he is the England and Liverpool captain and probably the most notable sportsmen ever from Liverpool and he says Bascombe is one of two pressmen he trusts.

I still think those references are trivial passing mentions. Outside the context of a Liverpool fan, all that is a young ambitious journalist doing his job. I'm sure other clubs, and large organisations in general, have journalists on speed dial to drip feed inside stories. I don't think being Houllier's press contact necessarily means he meets WP:GNG. Funny ^Pika! 16:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being a 'press contact' wouldn't make for GNG alone, but the fact that Fowler writes in his autobiography that Bascombe was used to engineer his multi-million pound move to Leeds suggests an influence and significance that goes above and beyond the usual contact that 'other clubs, and large organisations in general' would have. Also, this of course, is not the sole reason for Bascombe passing GNG (see NOTW move, awards, journalistic career, published books), in fact it's not even in the article at all at present, which needs improving and expanding. Petepetepetepete (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR having published works, and ghost written works. He also can pass on account as a published writer for the Daily Telegraph and just passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment appears to present a serious misinterpretation of WP:AUTHOR. There's no indication at all of any critical attention to speak of, and definitely no significant impact. Having published books does make one look at WP:AUTHOR, but simply having published books is not part of those criteria. JFHJr (㊟) 03:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reply, WP:AUTHOR #2 The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. (He has published way over 100 articles in the Daily Telegraph, a major newspaper in England. Have a search of their website! http://www.telegraph.co.uk) He clearly passes on that account to me. That is the most important part to note, because that is why he passes wiki author, on the grounds of section 2. Section #4 The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Well, this in part is another step towards notibility, he is a published author, has one known book published for Jamie Carragher who is an extremly well known footballer. This is backed up by citation 3 and 5. And Best XI Liverpool #4 collective body of work. So how can you tell me he doesn't pass wp author when he clearly does. Govvy (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of #2. Being employed and doing a job for about two years does not make you notable. That criteria was meant for creative professionals to discuss their careers in published sources, not as a catch all inclusion for every journalist who writes about someone or something else. Unless sources pop up documenting his journalistic career, I don't see him fulfilling this. Also I think you may have neglected the latter part of #4, which mentions: "that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Ghostwriting a book does not meet this criteria (many modern books are ghostwritten, but attribution goes to the creative author - who in this case is Carragher) and there are no indications that his other published work meets it either. Funny ^Pika! 16:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, the Daily Telegraph is a published source they publish every day! Hence Daily. I read his works often as does most people who read the Telegraph sports section. List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation. A fair number of people buy the publication. You have your interpretation of? You say he isn't notable, but I say differently, he is notable to me and then his notable to other readers. He is a person of note, it's just his article at the moment is pathetic. I don't wand to be rude but I'd say your interpretation is floored. Govvy (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed my point. I did not say that the Telegraph was not a large newspaper company nor that Bascombe's articles were not read by many people. I just don't believe that being a journalist and arbitrary number pointing makes one notable. Funny ^Pika! 15:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly, there are a number of sources documenting the subject's journalistic career, some of which already exist on the article. There are the numerous reports in national and regional press about his move to NOTW and also his journalistic career is mentioned in more than one autobiography of notable footballers. Petepetepetepete (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as in the last AfD I believe the subject passes WP:GNG, and I don't think BLP1E applies as he is noted for much more than his move to NotW. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to just about meet WP:AUTHOR #2. —me_and 19:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm in agreement about WP:AUTHOR but what tipped me over was that he was also awarded the 'Merseyside Journalist of the Year' and the 'Sports Journalist of the Year' award by Bill Kenwright at the Merseyside Media Network Journalism Awards.[19] While obviously not a very prestigious compared to a Pulitzer, it does seem to be the largely attended by the industry. [20]. That in additional to winning the 'Sports Writer of the Year in the North West' seems to meet the WP:ANYBIO criteria for awards, a total of three in addition to his writing credits. Mkdw ^talk 07:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep at best: a newspaper reporter and ghostwriter + a couple of awards. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (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. Not one source has been proposed that offers significant coverage of the subject. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislava Pak Stanković[edit]

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

Media adviser to the President of Serbia. No indication that she is notable in her own right. Spinning Spark 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep media advisor is notable position. We have numerous articles on advisors on wiki. And artice was just created, it will be expanded. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While I share WhiteWriter's concern about it being a new article ripe for expansion, the fact is WhiteWriter has been around long enough to know notability does not work so simply as someone's appointment (thus this nomination can't be called BITEy for coming too soon). The mere fact that someone is a political appointee does not result in a finding of notability, especially with respect to recent political appointees (in this case, someone who has held the office for two months at most). The article as written reeks of being a CV, the storage of which is not within Wikipedia's goals. My search for sources on this individual has been hampered by the facts that (1) I cannot read Serbian, and (2) the sources I can read are not significant coverage of her in her own right. With that in mind, I would change my !vote to a keep if WhiteWriter or another editor can present a prima facie case that this individual meets WP:GNG. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable political staffer, fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no indications of notability here, fails WP:BIO Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is this media adviser position equivalent to White House Press Secretary?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is completly the same!! I cannot belive people find this unnotable! --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources can WhiteWriter provide to verify that the media adviser is equivalent to the White House Press Secretary?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. 50,000 results on google positively attributed to this subject as this is for name between quotes, a number far greater than many "notable subjects". This does not include a further thousand for Станислава Пак Станковић, the Cyrillic counterpart for which I must add she has a healthy article on Serbian Wikipedia. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google results do not equal notability (although they might be an indication that something is there). Press secretaries frequently get their names in the press simply because they have delivered a press statement, ie, just doing their job. The Sebian Wikipedia article does not seem to have anything more than this one. Can you link to any of those results, English or Serbian, that actually discuss her rather than are just examples of her doing her job? If you can, and they are reliable sources, I might change my mind. Spinning Spark 07:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above. You hit the nail on head when you said "frequently get their names in the press" and "doing their job". Combine the two and it is impossible not to be notable. In like manner, not even the most arduous Facebook account holder with his thousands of "friends" can reach 50,000 - not even if every result points to Facebook itself and other social networks. That figure for a non-notable individual is astronomical. Conversely, we have countless articles on persons who achieved "fame" (quoted because I don't recognise the claim) through doing nothing other than appearing on Reality TV which in turn led to scandalous tabloid attention. It's not as if mere game show contestants have given anything to the world - poetry, music, philosophy, comedy, etc.. So you have to admit, the article is certainly borderline. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 50,000 hits, but 367, and 83 for the Cyrillic name, many of which are Wikipedia and mirrors thereof, or other unreliable sources. This is why we don't use the search engine test for making notability determinations. And you seem to be misunderstanding why frequently getting one's name in the press by doing one's job does not lead to notability: publishing a press release about one's employer and simply attaching one's name to that press release as the author does not give rise to a finding of notability. This would be like asserting someone meets WP:GNG because their parents published a birth announcement and their children published an obituary about them. It's two sources, largely about the subject, but it's flat out not enough. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that my system is not producing your finding when I click the links provided, I see from the editing screen that you have attempted to link some kind of information but for some reason it lands at google's main page. We are not talking about a birth or death announcement but an active person known to many members of the public who follow the relevant topic. The figures I produced are correct, it is 50,000 on the search engine and not a single entry pertains to a different person of the same name. Wikipedia appears yes, but accounts for a mere fraction - and you must remember that Wikipedia and mirror sites always dominate the first results. Farther away we see her activites presented in sources such as Blic and other Serbian language publications. The notabilty factor is unequivocal, and in light of my argument on the more recent post that there are articles devoted to persons only to have become known from being contestants on reality shows thereby being less notable if at all notable (ie. I cannot name one without checking), anyone favouring deletion really will have to do better. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go to the last page of results to get an accurate hit count. Please read WP:SET. It's only 367 hits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments count for nothing here. Why don't you link to at least one of these alleged 50,000 sources that confirm notability? That would help a lot more. Spinning Spark 22:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's named at the end of the list on this report. She has presented in Serbia as well as people remember that. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 01:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of trivial mention doesn't even come close to supporting notability. As to the OSE arguments, they are not persuasive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A passing mention at the end of a news article about somebody else doesn't make her notable. Feel free to create a new article when there is more indepth coverage about her - not about the President, not about other people - which satisfies the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources number few but notability is certain. Especially if you are from ex-Yu. Zetatrans (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion there is enough sources to vouch for notability. Perunova straža (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then please present a couple of these sources and this discussion will be over. Spinning Spark 09:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several keep !votes have made the claim that sources showing notability exist, but have failed to nominate any examples despite being repeatedly requested. In my opinion the closing admin should discount such !votes as unsabstantiated. Spinning Spark 09:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources!

Etc, etc. There is a lot of those, and much more to come. By each passing day we will have more and more material to add here, so it would be pointless to delete it, only to be expanded after it in next recreation... --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above appear to be significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. They are mentions, but mentions do not automatically presume notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as has been shown above the subject has received multiple mention in non-primary sources (whose reliability is questionable). However, none of those multiple mentions appear to be in-depth significant coverage of the subject, therefore the subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Internet Traffic Exchange "ARMIX" Foundation[edit]

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

PROD contested with The information about ARMIX is posted in the list of IXP. Also the media coverage of ARMIX activities ican be provided per request. However, it is enough just to search it in google and many articles can be found on the issue Beyond the obvious problems with this, not every exchange will meet WP:ORG, and there is no need to create one for each one in the list. I would have redirected but the title is not a plausible search term and the article is too new to warrant it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing significant coverage for this topic. NickCT (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:34, 23 April 2013 (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 ASF National Championships. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Allsopp Shield[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

as per my previous nomination. fails WP:GNG. this is a junior competition and not an elite competition so being "national" doesn't grant automatic notability. also, coverage is limited to some small newspaper and none of the major Australian press. nothing in national broadcaster [21], or major Australian news website [22]. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor boys trophy, not relevant to the highest national level. Fails notability on several fronts, including WP:NSPORT, WP:NEVENT, WP:SIGCOV. WWGB (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rediect to ASF National Championships. Minor junior competition, not independently notable, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National level competition, the article is referenced. go back read the previous nomination. it really just seems this editor is a little to trigger happy with the nominations for deletion and attacks on anyone that opposes them. --Dan027 (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that's WP:ADHOM, the coverage is not significant. Simply being referenced doesn't make it automatically notable. Can you find coverage in a national newspaper or tv station? LibStar (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have quite a few newspaper articles from the tournament, unfortunately at the moment most of my stuff is packed in storage and i do not have access to any online newspaper archives to look them up. A couple of the tournaments i was directly involved with; Sydney in 1997 there was coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald and local radio stations, Melbourne in 2003 there was coverage in the Herald Sun and FOX fm was in attendance for 2 nights of competition, Hobart in 2004 there was daily coverage in The Mercury and WIN did a small piece at the beginning of the tournament. Also in the late 1990s ABC provided coverage in the form of a 1 hour highlights package for each of the National Championships and National League Finals. --Dan027 (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google news archives, coverage is limited to Mt Druitt Standard, Border Mail, Blacktown Advocate, Penrith Star and Blayney Chronicle. WWGB (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing people on wikipedia seem unable to comprehend is; not all past newspaper content is available online, and even a 5 minute search on google news does not come up with a definitive list of what is available online. --Dan027 (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Condescension aside, I understand very well the limitations of Google News. My point is that there isn't much to work with, which possibly explains why the article is bereft of online sources. WWGB (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I do not have them handy, I have read about this competition in at least two books on the history of Australian softball. (And softball in Australia does have a fair number of men playing.) A search on Newsbank pulls up 27 results, which established WP:GNG being passed. They include the list below. --LauraHale (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing this as it is taking up to much room JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1.Sports extra Redcliffe Bayside Herald (Brisbane, Australia) - March 27, 2013 Length: 854 words (Estimated printed pages: 3) Scoring state selection SOFTBALL: Redcliffe softball player Paige Delacour has been selected to compete in the Queensland Maroon Women's softball team at the 2013 Southern Cross Challenge. Delacour, from Rothwell, will travel with the state team to Redlands Softball Association from April 25-28. The Southern Cross Challenge, which is hosted by Softball Queensland and the New Zealand Canterbury Softball Association in alternate years, provides a consistent international... 2.MILL PARK - State role - lifts teen's - ball game Leader - Whittlesea Post (Melbourne, Australia) - March 13, 2013 Length: 133 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) MILL PARK A MILL Park teenager is a hit above the rest after representing the Victorian softball team. Ryan Lawrence, one of the youngest in the under-17 team, travelled to Tasmania for the January national Arthur Allsopp Shield Championships, where his team came third. He said his state selection and playing at the national championships had given him a confidence boost. ``The whole experience changed me and it has given me a whole new focus on my fitness and my... 3.Batter stacks up stats ■Kaide Risby makes Australian under-17 softball squad Campbelltown-Macarthur Advertiser (Australia) - February 27, 2013 Length: 392 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) SOFTBALLER Kaide Risby's joy at being named the best batter during last month's under-17 men's national fastpitch championship turned to ecstasy last week. The young softballer's sporting career received a bigger boost when he was selected for the Australian under-17 national squad. "It's one of the greatest achievements of my life," Kaide said. "It is something I have been... 4.Pitcher finds the success zone Penrith Star (Australia) - October 10, 2012 Length: 428 words (Estimated printed pages: 3) WHETHER he masters the bases or not, Jack Noble is truly at home on the softball diamond. The Penrith Valley Sports Foundation Junior Sportstar of the Month for September has worn all the colours he can. They include those of Glenmore Phantoms Softball Club, as well as those of the Penrith City Softball Association, NSW and Australia. He aims to play at the world championships. The 15-year-old began the trek on perfect ground by earning a spot in the... 5.From bat to golden boot Penrith Star (Australia) - September 12, 2012 Length: 243 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) HE'S an ace of two disciplines, thriving in the diamond and on the footy field. From the bat to the Steeden, Michael Robar has exceeded in both softball and rugby league over the past year, stringing together an impressive resume that's led to him being named the Penrith Valley Sports Foundation Junior Sportstar of the Month for August. Robar, 16, enjoyed a meteoric rise from the turf of the Henry Lawson Hornets Softball Club to international bases... 6.Ace in two fields Penrith Star (Australia) - September 12, 2012 Length: 427 words (Estimated printed pages: 3) HE’S an ace of two trades who’s thriving in the diamond and on the footy field. From the bat to the Steeden, Michael Robar has exceeded in both softball and rugby league over the past year and has strung together an impressive resume that’s led to him being named the Penrith Valley Sports Foundation Junior Sportstar of the Month for August. The 16-year-old enjoyed a meteoric rise from the... 7.Softball champion Liam O'Leary impresses Camden Advertiser (Australia) - March 10, 2010 Length: 388 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) CURRANS Hill softball champion Liam O'Leary could be catching out the world's best in front of a roaring Argentinian crowd in two years' time if all goes to plan. The 16-year-old, who was Southern Districts Softball Association sportsman of the year last season, has been picked in the 2010 Australian Under-19 Men's squad and if he keeps his head on straight he will compete in the 2012 ISF XI Men's World Championship in South... 8.Softball champion Liam O'Leary impresses Camden Advertiser (Australia) - March 9, 2010 Length: 363 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) CURRANS Hill softball champion Liam O'Leary could be catching out the world's best in front of a roaring Argentinian crowd in two years' time if all goes to plan. The 16-year-old, who was Southern Districts Softball Association sportsman of the year last season, has been picked in the 2010 Australian Under-19 Men's squad and if he keeps his head on straight he will compete in the 2012 ISF XI Men's World Championship in South... 9.Softballers play hard and win Macarthur Chronicle (Sydney, Australia) - February 9, 2010 Length: 167 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) CAMPBELLTOWN & District Softball Association players Dane Paterson and Taylor Martin-Woodhouse have helped NSW win the Australian under-16 softball title. The teenagers, from Macquarie Fields and Ingleburn, played integral roles in the six-day tournament for the Arthur Allsopp Shield at Blacktown Olympic Park last month. They earned the praise of association president Richard Bromley who acknowledged both players' consistency. ``They have been great... 10.Softballers grab national win Penrith Star (Australia) - February 3, 2010 Length: 262 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) TAYLAH Tsitsikronis played her part perfectly to captain the NSW Under-16 girls' team to victory at the national softball championships from Sunday, January 10, to Saturday, January 16, at Blacktown Olympic Park. The 15-year-old catcher led NSW through a week of undefeated competition before eclipsing Queensland 3-0 in the grand final and winning the Esther Deason Shield for the second year in a row. "Defending our title was definitely a driving factor and... 11.Softballers grab national win Penrith Star (Australia) - February 3, 2010 Length: 262 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) TAYLAH Tsitsikronis played her part perfectly to captain the NSW Under-16 girls' team to victory at the national softball championships from Sunday, January 10, to Saturday, January 16, at Blacktown Olympic Park. The 15-year-old catcher led NSW through a week of undefeated competition before eclipsing Queensland 3-0 in the grand final and winning the Esther Deason Shield for the second year in a row. Defending our title was definitely a... 12.Championship victory for Taylah Tsitsikronis Penrith Star (Australia) - January 27, 2010 Length: 266 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) TAYLAH Tsitsikronis played her part perfectly to captain the NSW Under 16 girls team to victory at the national softball championships from Sunday, January 10, to Saturday, January 16, at Blacktown Olympic Park. The 15-year-old catcher (right) led NSW through a week of undefeated competition before eclipsing Queensland 3-0 in the grand final and winning the Esther Deason Shield for the second year in a row. Defending our title was definitely a driving... 13.Championship victory for Taylah Tsitsikronis Penrith Star (Australia) - January 27, 2010 Length: 266 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) TAYLAH Tsitsikronis played her part perfectly to captain the NSW Under 16 girls team to victory at the national softball championships from Sunday, January 10, to Saturday, January 16, at Blacktown Olympic Park. The 15-year-old catcher (right) led NSW through a week of undefeated competition before eclipsing Queensland 3-0 in the grand final and winning the Esther Deason Shield for the second year in a row. "Defending our title was definitely a driving factor and it was... 14.NSW triumphs Mt Druitt Standard (Sydney, Australia) - January 20, 2010 Length: 59 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) IT was a state of origin showdown at the national under-16 softball championships on Saturday when the NSW boys and girls beat their Queensland rivals. The NSW girls won 3-0 to retain the Esther Deason Shield. The boys won the Arthur Allsopp Shield 7-2 in an exciting game. The games were played at Blacktown Olympic Park, Rooty... 15.Youngsters pitch in Blacktown Advocate (Sydney, Australia) - January 13, 2010 Length: 183 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) THE country's best junior softballers have converged on Blacktown Olympic Park for the Softball Australia National Under-16 Championships. The first pitch of the event was thrown on Sunday, with the week-long tournament due to end on Saturday. The championships mark the beginning of representative careers for many of these talented young boys and girls with what has so far been an action-packed few days. The NSW boys take on premiers Victoria, along with... 16.National junior softball titles head to Rooty Hill Mt Druitt Standard (Sydney, Australia) - January 6, 2010 Length: 101 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) YOUNGSTERS will be looking to hit the ball out of Blacktown Olympic Park at the Softball Australia's national under-16s championships starting this Sunday. The six-day competition will mark the start of a representative career for many of the players, who will be travelling from all over the country for the tournament. The girls will be playing for the Esther Deason Shield and the NSW boys will be hoping to claim the Arthur Allsopp Shield. Games tee off at 9.30am... 17.Grants for champs Fairfield Advance (Sydney, Australia) - May 13, 2009 Length: 186 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) WESTFIELDS Sports High School students Kayne Kajan and Bradley Sharne were each presented with $500 under the Local Sporting Champions program last week. Athletics champion Sharne, a former Fairfield Advance Junior Sports Star award nominee, represented the state in the National Multiple Event Championships in Canberra last year and bagged a silver medal for the 1500m. He said he was thrilled to receive the grant. ``I'm going to give the money to my parents... 18.Tennis aces Liverpool Champion (Australia) - January 30, 2008 Length: 190 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) South West Sydney Academy of Sport is seeking boys and girls aged 11 to 16 years who live, attend school or play for a tennis club in the Liverpool area to join its tennis program. Coaches who are seeking scholarships can also nominate for the new coaching education program. Details: swsas.org.au. Eels' trials Parramatta have two trial games sheduled before the start of the 2008 season in March. They play Penrith at Lavington Sportsground in Albury, on Friday, February... 19.Plenty of bottle but Sydney miss out Sunday Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - October 7, 2007 Length: 344 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) IRATE fans last night threw plastic bottles at referee Mark Shield, who needed a police escort off the ground after a controversial match against Melbourne Victory at the Sydney Football Stadium. It featured the sending-off of one of Sydney FC's favourites, Steve Corica. While defending champions Melbourne snuck home, thanks to an 81st-minute goal from striker Danny Allsopp, Shield stole the spotlight by handing out one red card and eight yellow cards. Sydney... 20.Canberra Times: ACT boys win nationals Canberra Times (Australia) - January 23, 2007 Length: 189 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) THE ACT has been awarded the U/16 Boys National Fastpitch Championship Title in softball. The team took home the Arthur Allsopp shield for the first time since 2000 and only the second time since 1992. In the competition, held in South Australia last week the ACT team was undefeated and beat NSW for the title in the grand final. The ACT U/16 Women's side competed for the Esther Deason Shield at Downey Park in Queensland. Although managing a convincing... 21.Softballers help Vics claim title Leader - Berwick Leader (Melbourne, Australia) - January 26, 2005 Length: 264 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) CASEY Softball Association is bursting with pride after successful performances by its state representatives. Kerryn Atwell (Doveton) and Carolyn and Natalie James (Berwick) were integral members of the Victorian Under 19s who captured the Elinor MacKenzie Shield at last weekend's national championships. The raging Vics crushed NSW 3-0 in a tight final at Melbourne Ball Park, Altona. The James sisters starred in the match, registering two of the... 22.Damien setting his sights high South East Advertiser (Brisbane, Australia) - March 24, 2004 Length: 140 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) INTERNATIONAL competition has Carina resident Damien Nairn's adrenalin rushing and goals in sight. Damien has already played for Australia in softball matches against Japan. He was selected for the Australian under-19 men's team. The team contested a Test series against Japan in Sydney, which wound up on February 1. Damien was one of three players to be chosen for the series from the Arthur Allsopp Shield. This secured him a win in... 23.Youths gain honours for their efforts South East Advertiser (Brisbane, Australia) - March 10, 2004 Length: 241 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) A community-minded drummer, school captain and a national softball player have been rewarded for their efforts. The trio have picked up wins in the Quest Community Newspapers' YoungStar Awards for February. Hawthorne's Dane Byrom won in the community section of the awards. The 18-year-old drummer with Raw Metal Dance Company was involved in a fundraiser to supply footwear to the homeless. Dane donated shoes as part of a Who Gives a Shoe... 24.Aston loves the hard slog, fast pace Leader - Moonee Valley Gazette (Melbourne, Australia) - September 16, 2002 Length: 251 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) AT AGE 15, Aston Edwards may be at the younger end of the sports star scale but he has been playing softball for two-thirds of his life. Edwards, a member of the Australian under-19 softball team, took up the sport at the request of his cousin more than 10 years ago, playing in a competition for youngsters. Now he has his sights set on playing with the national team in the World Series scheduled for Japan in 2004. The Ascot Vale teenager was part of the Victorian team, which... 25.Softballer named in national squad Macarthur Chronicle (Sydney, Australia) - February 26, 2002 Length: 135 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) ESCHOL Park softballer Simon Webb is following in the footsteps of another Macarthur area athlete, Mark Long, with selection in the Australian under-19 training squad. The 16-year-old was named in the squad after last month's under-16 national titles at the Olympic Softball Centre, Blacktown. Webb was part of the successful NSW team that retained the Arthur Allsopp Shield. NSW downed the ACT 2-1 in the final, Webb setting up the victory with some tight pitching in the first five... 26.Showcase for future hampions Blacktown Advocate (Sydney, Australia) - January 9, 2002 Length: 183 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) BLACKTOWN is playing host to a new breed of potential world champions this week with the staging of the 2002 Australian under-16 boys fastpitch softball championship. The venue is the NSW Softball Centre, part of the Blacktown Olympic Centre at Rooty Hill. The tournament has one of the strongest development reputations in international softball, with most of Australia's 1997 and 2001 junior men world champion players having been identified initially at this... 27.Pitching in for future Mt Druitt Standard (Sydney, Australia) - January 9, 2002 Length: 141 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) BLACKTOWN is playing host to a new breed of potential world champions this week with the staging of the 2002 Australian under-16 boys fastpitch softball championship. The venue is the NSW Softball Centre, part of the Blacktown Olympic Centre at Rooty Hill. The tournament has one of the strongest development reputations in international softball, with most of Australia's 1997 and 2001 junior men world champion players having been identified initially at this level. From...

Collapsing this as it is taking up to much room JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.Sports extra

Redcliffe Bayside Herald (Brisbane, Australia) - March 27, 2013

Length: 854 words (Estimated printed pages: 3)

Scoring state selection SOFTBALL: Redcliffe softball player Paige Delacour has been selected to compete in the Queensland Maroon Women's softball team at the 2013 Southern Cross Challenge. Delacour, from Rothwell, will travel with the state team to Redlands Softball Association from April 25-28. The Southern Cross Challenge, which is hosted by Softball Queensland and the New Zealand Canterbury Softball Association in alternate years, provides a consistent international...

2.MILL PARK - State role - lifts teen's - ball game

Leader - Whittlesea Post (Melbourne, Australia) - March 13, 2013

Length: 133 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

MILL PARK A MILL Park teenager is a hit above the rest after representing the Victorian softball team. Ryan Lawrence, one of the youngest in the under-17 team, travelled to Tasmania for the January national Arthur Allsopp Shield Championships, where his team came third. He said his state selection and playing at the national championships had given him a confidence boost. ``The whole experience changed me and it has given me a whole new focus on my fitness and my...

3.Batter stacks up stats ■Kaide Risby makes Australian under-17 softball squad

Campbelltown-Macarthur Advertiser (Australia) - February 27, 2013

Length: 392 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

SOFTBALLER Kaide Risby's joy at being named the best batter during last month's under-17 men's national fastpitch championship turned to ecstasy last week. The young softballer's sporting career received a bigger boost when he was selected for the Australian under-17 national squad. "It's one of the greatest achievements of my life," Kaide said. "It is something I have been...

4.Pitcher finds the success zone

Penrith Star (Australia) - October 10, 2012

Length: 428 words (Estimated printed pages: 3)

WHETHER he masters the bases or not, Jack Noble is truly at home on the softball diamond. The Penrith Valley Sports Foundation Junior Sportstar of the Month for September has worn all the colours he can. They include those of Glenmore Phantoms Softball Club, as well as those of the Penrith City Softball Association, NSW and Australia. He aims to play at the world championships. The 15-year-old began the trek on perfect ground by earning a spot in the...

5.From bat to golden boot

Penrith Star (Australia) - September 12, 2012

Length: 243 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

HE'S an ace of two disciplines, thriving in the diamond and on the footy field. From the bat to the Steeden, Michael Robar has exceeded in both softball and rugby league over the past year, stringing together an impressive resume that's led to him being named the Penrith Valley Sports Foundation Junior Sportstar of the Month for August. Robar, 16, enjoyed a meteoric rise from the turf of the Henry Lawson Hornets Softball Club to international bases...

6.Ace in two fields

Penrith Star (Australia) - September 12, 2012

Length: 427 words (Estimated printed pages: 3)

HE’S an ace of two trades who’s thriving in the diamond and on the footy field. From the bat to the Steeden, Michael Robar has exceeded in both softball and rugby league over the past year and has strung together an impressive resume that’s led to him being named the Penrith Valley Sports Foundation Junior Sportstar of the Month for August. The 16-year-old enjoyed a meteoric rise from the...

7.Softball champion Liam O'Leary impresses

Camden Advertiser (Australia) - March 10, 2010

Length: 388 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

CURRANS Hill softball champion Liam O'Leary could be catching out the world's best in front of a roaring Argentinian crowd in two years' time if all goes to plan. The 16-year-old, who was Southern Districts Softball Association sportsman of the year last season, has been picked in the 2010 Australian Under-19 Men's squad and if he keeps his head on straight he will compete in the 2012 ISF XI Men's World Championship in South...

8.Softball champion Liam O'Leary impresses

Camden Advertiser (Australia) - March 9, 2010

Length: 363 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

CURRANS Hill softball champion Liam O'Leary could be catching out the world's best in front of a roaring Argentinian crowd in two years' time if all goes to plan. The 16-year-old, who was Southern Districts Softball Association sportsman of the year last season, has been picked in the 2010 Australian Under-19 Men's squad and if he keeps his head on straight he will compete in the 2012 ISF XI Men's World Championship in South...

9.Softballers play hard and win

Macarthur Chronicle (Sydney, Australia) - February 9, 2010

Length: 167 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

CAMPBELLTOWN & District Softball Association players Dane Paterson and Taylor Martin-Woodhouse have helped NSW win the Australian under-16 softball title. The teenagers, from Macquarie Fields and Ingleburn, played integral roles in the six-day tournament for the Arthur Allsopp Shield at Blacktown Olympic Park last month. They earned the praise of association president Richard Bromley who acknowledged both players' consistency. ``They have been great...

10.Softballers grab national win

Penrith Star (Australia) - February 3, 2010

Length: 262 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

TAYLAH Tsitsikronis played her part perfectly to captain the NSW Under-16 girls' team to victory at the national softball championships from Sunday, January 10, to Saturday, January 16, at Blacktown Olympic Park. The 15-year-old catcher led NSW through a week of undefeated competition before eclipsing Queensland 3-0 in the grand final and winning the Esther Deason Shield for the second year in a row. "Defending our title was definitely a driving factor and...

11.Softballers grab national win

Penrith Star (Australia) - February 3, 2010

Length: 262 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

TAYLAH Tsitsikronis played her part perfectly to captain the NSW Under-16 girls' team to victory at the national softball championships from Sunday, January 10, to Saturday, January 16, at Blacktown Olympic Park. The 15-year-old catcher led NSW through a week of undefeated competition before eclipsing Queensland 3-0 in the grand final and winning the Esther Deason Shield for the second year in a row. Defending our title was definitely a...

12.Championship victory for Taylah Tsitsikronis

Penrith Star (Australia) - January 27, 2010

Length: 266 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

TAYLAH Tsitsikronis played her part perfectly to captain the NSW Under 16 girls team to victory at the national softball championships from Sunday, January 10, to Saturday, January 16, at Blacktown Olympic Park. The 15-year-old catcher (right) led NSW through a week of undefeated competition before eclipsing Queensland 3-0 in the grand final and winning the Esther Deason Shield for the second year in a row. Defending our title was definitely a driving...

13.Championship victory for Taylah Tsitsikronis

Penrith Star (Australia) - January 27, 2010

Length: 266 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

TAYLAH Tsitsikronis played her part perfectly to captain the NSW Under 16 girls team to victory at the national softball championships from Sunday, January 10, to Saturday, January 16, at Blacktown Olympic Park. The 15-year-old catcher (right) led NSW through a week of undefeated competition before eclipsing Queensland 3-0 in the grand final and winning the Esther Deason Shield for the second year in a row. "Defending our title was definitely a driving factor and it was...

14.NSW triumphs

Mt Druitt Standard (Sydney, Australia) - January 20, 2010

Length: 59 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

IT was a state of origin showdown at the national under-16 softball championships on Saturday when the NSW boys and girls beat their Queensland rivals. The NSW girls won 3-0 to retain the Esther Deason Shield. The boys won the Arthur Allsopp Shield 7-2 in an exciting game. The games were played at Blacktown Olympic Park, Rooty...

15.Youngsters pitch in

Blacktown Advocate (Sydney, Australia) - January 13, 2010

Length: 183 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

THE country's best junior softballers have converged on Blacktown Olympic Park for the Softball Australia National Under-16 Championships. The first pitch of the event was thrown on Sunday, with the week-long tournament due to end on Saturday. The championships mark the beginning of representative careers for many of these talented young boys and girls with what has so far been an action-packed few days. The NSW boys take on premiers Victoria, along with...

16.National junior softball titles head to Rooty Hill

Mt Druitt Standard (Sydney, Australia) - January 6, 2010

Length: 101 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

YOUNGSTERS will be looking to hit the ball out of Blacktown Olympic Park at the Softball Australia's national under-16s championships starting this Sunday. The six-day competition will mark the start of a representative career for many of the players, who will be travelling from all over the country for the tournament. The girls will be playing for the Esther Deason Shield and the NSW boys will be hoping to claim the Arthur Allsopp Shield. Games tee off at 9.30am...

17.Grants for champs

Fairfield Advance (Sydney, Australia) - May 13, 2009

Length: 186 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

WESTFIELDS Sports High School students Kayne Kajan and Bradley Sharne were each presented with $500 under the Local Sporting Champions program last week. Athletics champion Sharne, a former Fairfield Advance Junior Sports Star award nominee, represented the state in the National Multiple Event Championships in Canberra last year and bagged a silver medal for the 1500m. He said he was thrilled to receive the grant. ``I'm going to give the money to my parents...

18.Tennis aces

Liverpool Champion (Australia) - January 30, 2008

Length: 190 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

South West Sydney Academy of Sport is seeking boys and girls aged 11 to 16 years who live, attend school or play for a tennis club in the Liverpool area to join its tennis program. Coaches who are seeking scholarships can also nominate for the new coaching education program. Details: swsas.org.au. Eels' trials Parramatta have two trial games sheduled before the start of the 2008 season in March. They play Penrith at Lavington Sportsground in Albury, on Friday, February...

19.Plenty of bottle but Sydney miss out

Sunday Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - October 7, 2007

Length: 344 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

IRATE fans last night threw plastic bottles at referee Mark Shield, who needed a police escort off the ground after a controversial match against Melbourne Victory at the Sydney Football Stadium. It featured the sending-off of one of Sydney FC's favourites, Steve Corica. While defending champions Melbourne snuck home, thanks to an 81st-minute goal from striker Danny Allsopp, Shield stole the spotlight by handing out one red card and eight yellow cards. Sydney...

20.Canberra Times: ACT boys win nationals

Canberra Times (Australia) - January 23, 2007

Length: 189 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

THE ACT has been awarded the U/16 Boys National Fastpitch Championship Title in softball. The team took home the Arthur Allsopp shield for the first time since 2000 and only the second time since 1992. In the competition, held in South Australia last week the ACT team was undefeated and beat NSW for the title in the grand final. The ACT U/16 Women's side competed for the Esther Deason Shield at Downey Park in Queensland. Although managing a convincing...

21.Softballers help Vics claim title

Leader - Berwick Leader (Melbourne, Australia) - January 26, 2005

Length: 264 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

CASEY Softball Association is bursting with pride after successful performances by its state representatives. Kerryn Atwell (Doveton) and Carolyn and Natalie James (Berwick) were integral members of the Victorian Under 19s who captured the Elinor MacKenzie Shield at last weekend's national championships. The raging Vics crushed NSW 3-0 in a tight final at Melbourne Ball Park, Altona. The James sisters starred in the match, registering two of the...

22.Damien setting his sights high

South East Advertiser (Brisbane, Australia) - March 24, 2004

Length: 140 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

INTERNATIONAL competition has Carina resident Damien Nairn's adrenalin rushing and goals in sight. Damien has already played for Australia in softball matches against Japan. He was selected for the Australian under-19 men's team. The team contested a Test series against Japan in Sydney, which wound up on February 1. Damien was one of three players to be chosen for the series from the Arthur Allsopp Shield. This secured him a win in...

23.Youths gain honours for their efforts

South East Advertiser (Brisbane, Australia) - March 10, 2004

Length: 241 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

A community-minded drummer, school captain and a national softball player have been rewarded for their efforts. The trio have picked up wins in the Quest Community Newspapers' YoungStar Awards for February. Hawthorne's Dane Byrom won in the community section of the awards. The 18-year-old drummer with Raw Metal Dance Company was involved in a fundraiser to supply footwear to the homeless. Dane donated shoes as part of a Who Gives a Shoe...

24.Aston loves the hard slog, fast pace

Leader - Moonee Valley Gazette (Melbourne, Australia) - September 16, 2002

Length: 251 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

AT AGE 15, Aston Edwards may be at the younger end of the sports star scale but he has been playing softball for two-thirds of his life. Edwards, a member of the Australian under-19 softball team, took up the sport at the request of his cousin more than 10 years ago, playing in a competition for youngsters. Now he has his sights set on playing with the national team in the World Series scheduled for Japan in 2004. The Ascot Vale teenager was part of the Victorian team, which...

25.Softballer named in national squad

Macarthur Chronicle (Sydney, Australia) - February 26, 2002

Length: 135 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

ESCHOL Park softballer Simon Webb is following in the footsteps of another Macarthur area athlete, Mark Long, with selection in the Australian under-19 training squad. The 16-year-old was named in the squad after last month's under-16 national titles at the Olympic Softball Centre, Blacktown. Webb was part of the successful NSW team that retained the Arthur Allsopp Shield. NSW downed the ACT 2-1 in the final, Webb setting up the victory with some tight pitching in the first five...

26.Showcase for future hampions

Blacktown Advocate (Sydney, Australia) - January 9, 2002

Length: 183 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

BLACKTOWN is playing host to a new breed of potential world champions this week with the staging of the 2002 Australian under-16 boys fastpitch softball championship. The venue is the NSW Softball Centre, part of the Blacktown Olympic Centre at Rooty Hill. The tournament has one of the strongest development reputations in international softball, with most of Australia's 1997 and 2001 junior men world champion players having been identified initially at this...

27.Pitching in for future

Mt Druitt Standard (Sydney, Australia) - January 9, 2002

Length: 141 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

BLACKTOWN is playing host to a new breed of potential world champions this week with the staging of the 2002 Australian under-16 boys fastpitch softball championship. The venue is the NSW Softball Centre, part of the Blacktown Olympic Centre at Rooty Hill. The tournament has one of the strongest development reputations in international softball, with most of Australia's 1997 and 2001 junior men world champion players having been identified initially at this level. From...

Comment I've reformatted the above text to ease readability. Please either link content or summerise findings in further contributions. Copy and pasting large amounts into a block of text is not entirely helpful. Funny ^Pika! 17:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but a lot of those things you linked to made absolutely no mention of this Shield, or only suggest very trivial mentions. 27 sources in a news search doesn't do anything whatsoever for GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ASF National Championships. I can only find local routine coverage for this junior championship, the sort that acts as page filler for minor newspaper back pages. Doesn't seem to be notable outside softball circles. A merge to the main championships article would be the best option. Funny ^Pika! 17:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ASF National Championships: There's pretty much nothing to merge, as all this article is really a promotional fluffy thing for Arthur Allsopp, and a list of winners. This competition fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG pretty clearly. Being a national competition isn't a grounds for notability, nor is the fact the article is referenced (it's very, very, very badly referenced, and may actually be a copyvio in part of ref #4) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Appears to fail WP:GNG. —me_and 19:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Unfortunately, the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that is necessary for inclusion just isn't there. The best source in there is an Economist article which mentions the automated creation of articles; it appears that the Volapük Wikipedia is hardly known for anything but this event, and even that is precarious. Many of the "keep" !voters attempt to make a case for WP:IAR, and indeed the content is of interest to Wikipedians, hence the following solution. I am moving the article to Wikipedia:Volapük Wikipedia without redirect, while creating a redirect at Volapük Wikipedia to List of Wikipedias. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volapük Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Four years after the first discussion, which ended in no consensus, with most keep votes based on "it's a large Wikipedia version", but none actually adressing WP:GNG, this page still has not a single reliable, independent source. That it has so many articles is mainly due to bot-generated articles; but there is nothing that makes this a notable website, and applying different rules for Wikipedia-related articles than for other ones is not correct. Fram (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak keep I had a good search around for sources, but couldn't find anything better than this Times of India "source", which isn't actually a source at all. Not every Wikipedia is notable to have an article, so there's no real shame in this one not having one either. People will still find it if they need to. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sourcing is weak at the moment, but Languages on the internet The keenest Wikipedians discusses this wiki with a good bit of depth and may tip the scales. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding that, would make a good source for our list of Wikipedias, and makes it clear that the Volapuk Wikipedia is a bit of a scam, as it is bot generated content good for basically nothing and no one. It's more than a passing mention, but not really sufficient to meet WP:GNG in my opinion. 13:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Now that is has reliable sources there is no rationale to delete. Also, it's one of the better written articles about an individual Wikipedia. --MarsRover (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A solid contribution to Wikipedia scholarship. Nitpicking this on the basis of sources is shortsighted and amounts to the worship of rules and regulations at the cost of common sense. Rather than kowtowing to the lower-level guidelines, we should keep in this case in accord with the higher level policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES — use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And how is Wikipedia improved by ignoring rules that apply to all articles but not for a bot-filled other Wikipedia version? Nepotism isn't really what WP:IAR was created for. If you consider this article "a solid contribution to Wikipedia scholarship", move it to the Wikipedia namespace. Articles that are for 99 percent sourced to internal sources and blogs are not really an improvement for an encyclopedia. This has little to do with common sense, but then, that isn't the reason that you appear at this specific AfD of course. Fram (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised at the implication of, what?, that I have some sort of fundamental beef with you and am following you around or something. No. I'm a consistent advocate of Wikipedia documenting its own history for future scholarship. If that means that we let some articles slide that are internally sourced, my feeling is "tough tits — as long as it is accurate." Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just using common sense, which seems to be infallible in your opinion. It isn't, of course. Fram (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger into Volapük or List of Wikipedias. This is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Warden (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with Colonel Warden. Kumioko (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before we all get carried away with "Snow keep", I feel I need to point out that a number of sources are from the Wikimedia Foundation, which here is a primary source, and not significant, independent coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Similarly, other sources are from Flickr images or forum posts - which are self-published sources and cannot generally be used either. While Tarc's source is a good source, I don't really think that's enough to tip it over the notability guidelines, so at the moment, all I see is a non-notable subject with not many sources turned into a non-notable subject with lots of unsuitable sources. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the aforementioned source does not tip the scales of notability, the following certainly should. The Volapük Wikipedia caused undeniable stir within the Wikimedia community, even getting attention from key Wikipedians Jimmy Wales and Chuck Smith. The reference to a self-published Flickr page is necessary to illustrate the case in which Volapük was featured as well as other simple facts about the event not published elsewhere (location, date, etc.). All other "non-notable" sources used in the article (Wikimedia Foundation, Volapükalised, etc.) are either references to statistical facts about the edition or to discussions about it between prominent volapükologists or Wikipedians, for which there are no alternative sources. Several other articles make generous use of references to primary sources published by the Wikimedia Foundation or to similarly relevant "self-published" mailing lists, including Wikipedia and OpenBSD. Yet they are good/featured articles! WP:PRIMARY explicitly states that "a primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.", so it is inaccurate to call them "unsuitable sources" on this article. Anyway, the Volapük Wikipedia did get independent, third-party coverage required to pass WP:GNG on the Internet (PC World Poland [23], Libera Folio [24], and The Public Domain Review [25]) as well as in at least three books. Summa summarum, it still has more references than one would expect from an edition of Wikipedia in a language with as few speakers and as little public awareness in the last century, and I strongly believe that both WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE would suffice to grant this article rights to existence given its historical impact on the Wikimedia community alone. Since "our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers" and because "the principle of the rules is to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive", I say "keep". Just my two cents as this article's main contributor. --Iketsi (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no - WP:IAR does not apply here. The problem with keeping this article without proper sourcing is that you'll be puffing it up to make it more important than it really is - which fails WP:NPOV. The article should talk about Volapük Wikipedia from a disinterested layman's point of view, not a Wikipedia fanboy's, and if you don't have the sources to do so ... you'll need to wait until you have! Anyway, fortunately you have supplied some sources which contribute towards notability. The PC World source looks good, and so does that the Libera Folio, but the Public Domain Review is about the language, with a brief passing mention to the Wikipedia, so I wouldn't deem that acceptable. So we've just got about four sources that are significant and independent to tip it into WP:GNG. I'd remind people that the state of the state of other articles is never a convincing argument, and a primary source can be used to verify facts, but it fails WP:GNG on the "independent" criteria. Uncle G's notability essay is a good one to read. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There are some really awful sourcing issues there. Whether there is a real article in there trying to escape I am not sure. Let's try removing all self refs and primary refs and see what is left. --John (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Still need a bit more time to evaluate the quality of the sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, I don't understand the issue here. There are 96 articles about Wikipedia language editions. Most of them don't mention any source but Wikipedia itself. This article is more informative and lists a much higher number of sources. As for notability, I remember there has been an entire programme about this subject on the Dutch national radio a few years ago (I was asked to participate, but couldn't). Obviously, the sources used in this article are not the New York Times, but please, people, let's not overdo it. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on it having over 100,000 articles. I think those with over 100,000 are typically worthy of coverage.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Delete Based on Aymatth's findings that it is an obscure wikipedia with mainly bot generated articles and a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took the 51 citations, cut out all the wiki sources, blogs and articles that do not mention the Volapük Wikipedia or just note its existence. That leaves four sources.

The Economist mentions the 119,091 auto-translated articles
An academic paper about Wikipedia also mentions the over-100,000 auto-translated stubs
The Esperanto "Libera Folio" magazine has a full story on the auto-creation bot and its author
PC World (Polish) briefly mentions the auto-creation

So when we cut out all the self-published stuff, we just have this one news item. The story is more about Sergio Meira, the bot creator, than about Volapük Wikipedia. If the article were pruned down to the information provided by independent sources about the Volapük Wikipedia it would read, in its entirety:

The Volapük Wikipedia is a version of Wikipedia in the Volapük constructed language. Until recently it had less than 1,000 entries. In 2007 an enthusiast for this language used a computer program to automatically generate over 100,000 articles, mostly very short.^[1][2][3]

For comparison, imagine an article that reads:

TenisBwrdd.cy is a Welsh-language website about ping-pong. Until recently it had less than 1,000 entries. In 2007 a ping-pong enthusiast used a computer program to automatically generate over 100,000 articles, mostly very short.^[1][2][3]

One minor event is not enough to warrant an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to point out that the Vükiped is not the only Wikipedia edition that used bots to create massive amounts of articles. Several other projects (for example Italian IIRC) have done the same, and my own home project (Dutch) is full of them, too. Personally, I am kind of fascinated by all the reactions. I am pretty sure that if the Wikipedia edition in, say, Amharic or Irish, had done the same thing, reactions wouldn't have been as sharp as they are now. The only possible conclusion is that the reason why so many people were/are upset about this, is that Volapük is a constructed language. Which makes the whole discussion quite an interesting phenomenon in itself. Same thing here: Category:Wikipedias by language contains articles about 97 different projects, of which I just opened 15 of them randomly (both bigger and smaller projects). And guess what? Most of them link ONLY to Wiki[p/m]edia pages, and only a very small amount of them contain links to so-called "reputable news sources". The article in question is both more elaborate AND better sourced than almost all the others, which, again, makes me wonder why we're having this discussion about this very page. I'd like to note that the fact that WP.VO has 119,000 articles does not make it notable in itself, but all the discussions about that, both on Meta and elsewhere, do. Secondly, it should be mentioned that the recurring number of 20 speakers shouldn't be taken for granted. If you look at the Volapük mailing list and the number of people who have contributed to WP.VO, it is more than obvious that the actual number of active Volapük users must be many times higher. At last, if we take the number of 107,000 bot-generated articles for granted, this leaves us still with 12,000 user-created articles - quite a respectable number by any standard. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles on Wikipedia languages editions are worse is irrelevant. We are in the position of a company or politician that finds itself in a conflict on interest. We must be scrupulous in following the rules that we ourselves have set. Internal discussions cannot possibly make a topic notable. The only relevant question is whether the website has been sufficiently discussed by reliable independent sources. It has not. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it isn't because it has 119,000 articles that's it's notable, but I was under the impression that we generally accept articles on other wikipedias on here, especially those with a reasonably number of articles so I just assumed it is probably notable without looking into the sources. But if most articles are practically empty and bot generated and the wikipedia really has a frighteningly low number of decent independent sources then I think Aymatth has a valid point for deletion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites only four independent sources, all about the one stub generation incident. No source has written anything else about any other aspect of the Volapük Wikipedia, which is not surprising since it is just another obscure Wikipedia. The article relies almost entirely on internal self-published material, not acceptable for any article. Maybe the Home Hardware 4" Standard Ardox Spiral Nail is an important product to Home Hardware, the subject of various internal memos. That does not mean it gets an article. We should follow our own rules, particularly with articles about Wikipedia. They have to meet standard notability guidelines. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a sidenote, have to meet ... guidelines is kind of a contradiction. Notability criteria indeed are just guidelines, not rules. Verifiability on the other hand is. And it is nonsense that discussions on Meta about the Volapük Wikipedia cannot serve as primary sources, because that's precisely what they are. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 14:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article in Wikipedia about an aspect of Wikipedia, such as this, should conform to higher standards then most. The fact that this article is about one of our websites does not mean we can ignore all our own rules. We should be particularly careful not to give ourselves special treatment. The bulk of the content should derive from reliable independent sources. There should be enough independent coverage to establish notability. In this case, there is just one minor story on stub generation. That is not enough. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In that case, I suggest moving it to the Wikipedia namespace. That's what the German Wikipedia did. Iketsi (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support moving the article to the WP namespace. Even though the topic does not meet our general notability guidelines, it does seem to be of interest to editors. The subjects of bot-generated articles and auto-translation are certainly significant within the project, even if broader public is not particularly interested. Not sure what the best location would be... Aymatth2 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mainspace. It's time we stopped applying an especially high standard to topics related to WP. I'm saying essentially the opposite of Aymatth2. Everyone expects us to cover aspects of our movement, and moving them to WP space, tho better than nothing, is not necessary . What matters is that what we write be objective. Objectivity and NPOV is important--whether or not we have an article much less so. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article would never survive if it were about any other website. It would not have a snowball's hope. The sourcing is atrocious and cannot remotely be considered objective or neutral. Hardly any independent sources have paid any attention to this topic, and they only discussed the incident of the auto-generated articles. It is appropriate for us to present our views, principles, policies, approach etc. in our namespace. It is completely inappropriate for us to present this in the form of an article. If any other company tried to pull a trick like this, we would boot them out right away.

The analogy is an online newspaper. They will have an "About" section that talks about their management, philosophy, finances and so on. They will have clearly identified editorials and blogs. But if the main news and information sections are full of uncritical blog-type articles about the publisher, they destroy their credibility. We should not make that mistake. Mainspace articles should be based on reliable independent sources. What we say about Wikipedia outside mainspace in our "about" and editorial sections is a different question. Let's not confuse the two. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult one. I must admit I naturally think having an article about any of our wikipedias is fine in principal and as DGG says, you'd expect us to cover them. The article itself I think is useful and it would be shame to delete, but as Aymatth2 says, technically the sourcing is atrocious and most sourcing is self referencing. If we are to treat it fairly as an encyclopedia article I think it doesn't have the coverage in independent publications which would make it acceptable. I think the question we really need to ask is would wikipedia be better off having it deleted, and I'm not sure it would in terms of information.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of December 2012 there were 634 million websites, with 50 million added every year. This is one of the most obscure, only used by a handful of hobbyists. A decision to keep this blog-sourced article sets a precedent for keeping any article on any website regardless of whether any independent sources have discussed it. The only reason we are considering it is because it is "one of ours". Not a good reason. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I took the 51 citations, cut out all the wiki sources, blogs and articles that do not mention the Volapük Wikipedia or just note its existence. That leaves four sources." And significant coverage in four reliable sources is enough to tip it over the edge of WP:GNG and change to a "weak keep" vote ... just. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is of one event, the mass-generation of stubs, and does not discuss the website. The sources do not even give significant coverage of the event - they just mention it casually. Thus: "... languages such as Volapuk may have fewer than 30 speakers, but more than 100,000 articles, most of which are stubs created and edited automatically." This essay relies entirely on internal or self-published sources for all other information about the website. Is the event notable? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could blow up the whole article and start all over from the best sources and see what you've got left. A small stub, but still enough. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that. Volapük already includes a description of the stub-generation event (unfortunately citing Wikimedia as a source). The event could perhaps also be mentioned in History of Wikipedia#2007. But giving it an article all of its own seems a bit daft - it really is obscure. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see plenty of good sources already in the article - a reliable book about Wikipedia, a government website, amongst others. Per DGG, if we don't cover Wikimedia topics, who will? Bearian (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book says "... Wikipedias exist in constructed languages (Esperanto [eo] and Volapük [vo]) ...". The "Open Government" source says the same: "... in Kunstsprachen (Esperanto, Volapük) ..." Neither discuss the website. If no independent sources cover a particular Wikimedia topic, it is not notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is sufficent stuff here to sway me to keep - the sourcing might be minor and the language obscure, but I believe if nothing else this falls under WP:IAR - readers will expect an article on other Wikipedias. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is such an article: List of Wikipedias. If readers were interested in detailed coverage of this subject, independent sources would discuss it. That is how we determine notability with any other article. If Wikipedians are interested, which is clearly true from this discussion, but the general public is not, which is obvious from the lack of independent sources, it can be covered in the WP: namespace. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stray thought - Has anyone checked to make sure this website is for real, not just an elaborate hoax? It exists for sure, at http://vo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cifapad, but does the content mean anything? How exactly does this stub generator work? Just a stray thought. I am sure there is no problem... Aymatth2 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax. :) (unlike the Siberian Wikipedia). --Iketsi (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that question must have come up before. But it is surprising that the German Wikipedia has no article, when most of the Volapük enthusiasts seem to be German. What were the reasons why they moved it out of mainspace? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Volapük enthusiasts used to be German, over a century ago, but that is not true anymore. The modern Volapük community is spread out around Europe (mainly in the United Kingdom) and the Americas, with the Vükiped's most prolific contributors being Brazilian. I did not find any discussion on the German Wikipedia about their decision to move it out of the mainspace, but they also did it with other Wikis that had limited sources. See de:Kategorie:Wikipedia:Enzyklopädie. --Iketsi (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see some rather scathing comments about the Vükiped Wikipedia quality, e.g. de:Diskussion:Volapük#Frage zur vo-Wikipedia, but nothing about the reason for moving the article that describes it. Still, the sourcing on de:Wikipedia:Enzyklopädie/Volapük-Wikipedia is indeed hopeless. The intro to the page de:Wikipedia:Enzyklopädie makes a great deal of sense. The namespace is designed for articles about Wikipedia that are useful internally to people involved in the project but do not meet the criteria for articles for the general public. The English Wikipedia should have a similar namespace, where we could spread ourselves on topics of purely internal interest, like this one. Perhaps the next step is to set one up, then to move this and similar articles over to it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An attempt to summarize the discussion so far follows.

The website described can be read by less than 20 people. It is mostly maintained by one individual, Sergio Meira. Almost all the 120,000+ articles are very short, with no cited sources. There is no evidence that the website is a hoax, but individual postings may be suspect.
The article relies almost entirely on Wikipedia or sister project editor and blog comments. There is minimal discussion of the topic by external sources. What there is talks only about one incident of automated stub creation. Based on quality of sources and lack of independent coverage, the article does not qualify for retention.
Most editors feel the article should be kept anyway regardless of technicalities since it appears to give good coverage of an interesting and important subject and readers will expect Wikipedia to cover the subject.

Is that a fair summary? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Several users contribute regularly and Smeira is not one of them (since 2009). He did write most of the articles, though. --Iketsi (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability. Just one minor event (the bot-created articles) was mentioned in a few reliable sources. If this were about any other website but a wiki, editors here would tumble over each other screaming "spam", "no sources", "not notable". --Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe (hairstylist)[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited from famous clients. A short mention in this book doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines. Atlantima (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Christophe really is a famous hairstylist, although I am not sure he passes GNG. This article is missing any mention of the most famous incident of Christophe's career, when he cut President Clinton's hair on Air Force One while the plane sat on the tarmac at LAX; it was then widely (and incorrectly) reported in the media that air traffic was delayed while everyone waited for Christophe to finish the haircut.[26] Although the reports were debunked, the media kerfuffle was prolonged. See, e.g., the section entitled "A $200 Haircut at LAX" at this Frontline collection of anecdotes about the Clinton administration [27]. Additional background here: [28] This incident is mentioned in a number of existing Wikipedia articles. [29] By itself, this one incident is probably not enough to satisfy GNG, despite the voluminous coverage, but if some other evidence of substantial coverage turns up, it might be. Searching for an individual with a single common name isn't easy, but GNews does have lots of references to Christophe as a top hairstylist.[30] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The info already in the article asserts notability, especially that he is known as a stylist and has his own line of products sold in major stores. If some of the articles linked in the post just above were added as sources this article would not be questioned. BigJim707 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BigJim707. He's right, if the sources listed were used as citations, this article would be fine. Mabalu (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not even meet the basics. Trivial coverage at most. Mootros (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just realised that the name is misspelled - technically, it should be Cristophe with no H. However, the sources clearly refer to him both ways. The list of Google News archive hits that BigJim found clearly demonstrates general notability, more so than for many hairdressers. I realise that some people do not consider hairdressers notable, and certainly, Fiona "Fluffy" Tweakfollicle from Cut'N'Blowdry, Pasadena certainly isn't notable, but this guy has received extensive coverage and mentions in many articles beyond Clintongate. If you search for the same string with "Cristophe" correctly spelled, you get even more hits and news results, e.g. [31]. Totally passes WP:GNG. Mabalu (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've now added a number of sources to the article, including at least one relatively recent source to show that Cristophe's notability has continued well beyond the Clinton haircut incident. (Also, additional, paywalled sources appear to exist that discuss his cosmetic line at CVS, among other things.) So I think he overcomes BLP1E concerns, and I'm moving my !vote to keep. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable in his field.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable enough for inclusion. I knew who he was when I saw the name, though I'm not in that industry (and have no interest in it, either). HillbillyGoat (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2013 (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/snowball deletion, nonsense, Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamaholedowner[edit]

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

WP:Neologism and an unsuitable topic for Wikipedia. Prod removed without reason. Funny ^Pika! 07:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unremarkable topic to have without any references. Appears to be a hoax. smtchahal^(talk) 08:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: well, hoax or not, it's unsourced and totally unsuitable as an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maddigunta Narasimha Rao[edit]

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

Could not find a reliable source talking about subject. Fails Notability, possible WP:ARTSPAM Evano1van (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY. I can't find anything at all that could prove the topic to be notable. It can also be PRODed for being a biography of a living person without any references. smtchahal^(talk) 12:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One or two lines won't make an article. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The subject turned up on a few blogs, possibly his own. Fails WP:GNG hardcore. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything I found appears to be self-written and/or self-created, so it fails on both notability and third-party source criteria. His S S M Ashramam is also nominated for deletion, and I could find no sources at all which would suggest notability on that basis either; even the person arguing for Keep could only cite their own blog, a Google Maps entry and a directory listing, all of which obviously fail on both notability and reliable sources grounds. HillbillyGoat (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep. keep some more days to establish notability.There are some references such as High court orders regard to Maddigunta Narasimha Rao. I think it will clear proof of notability.So some more time needed to show the same.(Manavu (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Tower (Midland, Texas)[edit]

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

Not yet existing building. Not yet notable. | Uncle Milty | talk | 07:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The building isn't yet built, isn't yet approved and this page seems like someone who opposes the project is attempting to use it as a propaganda tool, based on the edit history. Very inflammatory language. Atx1016 (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is being used as a battleground between developers and historic re-use advocates, but the proposed building is notable. Bloomberg has a writeup: "Midland Counts on 53-Story Tower as Oil Again Buoys Texas". The Wall Street Journal reports the controversial plan: "Energy Boom Sparks Building Spree in West Texas: As Many Companies Prosper, Opinions Diverge on a Proposed Office Tower That Would Dominate Midland's Skyline". The local Amarillo Globe-News has a writeup: "'Tall City' may get a lot taller". The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat have a news item: "Energy Tower to Rise in Midland, Texas". Local news Permian Basin published at least two articles: "Midlanders Have Mixed Feelings Over New Energy Tower" and "Energy Tower Set To Take Place Of Old Midland Courthouse Virtually Revealed". The architectural database Emporis has a listing: "Energy Tower at City Center". CBS affiliate KOSA carried a story: "Out With The Old County Courthouse, In With The Tallest Tower In Midland". Local channel 9 news carried a story: "Developers Unveil Details for Energy Tower in Midland". Local channel 10 news put out pretty much the same story: "Developers Unveil Details for Energy Tower in Midland". The Fort Worth Star-Telegram wrote an article: "Hedge fund manager is bullish on Midland". Change.org has a petition up to save the old courthouse. Mywesttexas.com has a ton of discussion on the topic. Various online skyscraper forums are talking about it. There is definitely a topic here, even if it is a difficult one to keep neutral. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Binksternet. I just semi-protected the article for a week which should hopefully cut down on the POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even in light of reliable third-party sources which reference the proposed building, something which is nonexistent cannot meet notability guidelines in and of itself. However, based upon those same sources, I believe the controversy about the building does meet notability. I would therefore respectfully suggest that the article should be about the Energy Tower Controversy. After it's actually built (assuming that it ever is built, in light of the controversy), the article about the controversy could be merged into one comprehensive article about the Energy Tower. HillbillyGoat (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- HillbillyGoat (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are dozens of articles on Wikipedia about things that do not exist. There is no requirement for something to be built in order for it to have an article. Many architectural articles are started even when the building is not yet completed. As an extreme example, the Dynamic Tower has never been approved to be built by anybody, anywhere, yet the article exists, and it survived a deletion request in 2008. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - either move the article to a "controversy" as suggested above, or delete it per WP:HAMMER - since it does not exist beyond the design/permitting phase, I'm not sure such an article should remain. I have no problem with an article about the controversy, which is essentially what the extensive coverage shows. When and if it is built, the article can be moved back, overriding the redirect. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. Just now I went to HAMMER to see what it said, but all I could get was that it is about article titles for topics that are not yet named, not about deleting articles, nor about topics which have a fairly solid name such as this one. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and at its current title) per Binks' references found. There is no requirement that something actually has to exist in order to have an article on it, itself - note the article on a certain cryptid is at Bigfoot, not Bigfoot myth. This subject clearly passes WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a large number of not-yet-completed buildings with articles, so that's clearly not a barrier. Its imminent construction is extremely well documented and the building itself more than passes GNG. If there are issues with editing disputes that should be resolved so the article can move forward - deleting it is the exact wrong approach. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 01:44, 24 April 2013 (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 Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Geocodes[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

This article seems to be a POV / advertising fork of Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland, and most of the sources are blogs or otherwise unreliable sources. Once you take the advertising stuff out, you're left with a pretty thin stub. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems close to Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland, and could be merged/redirected there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Geocodes are not postal codes and Ireland doesn't have postal codes. The article Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland refers to the proposed introduction of a new postcode. One sees little advertising really, just plain maths. One sees a balance between all available geocodes in Ireland where information is available. The page seems to be suffering from unnecessary vandalism. A correction by Rugxulo has been repeatedly deleted even though it checks out to be a more correct reading of the mathematics. Rugxulo made a number of well considered explanations of the mathematics and has been attacked as someone with either no interest in Ireland (the maths has little to do with Ireland anyway) and as not a real user. The user made their first edit in 2004 and continues to edit. Made their first edit on postcodes in 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rugxulo). There appears to be more than simple good-faith editing in these deletions. Perhaps the topic could be merged with Geocodes in general, though it must be pointed out that Ireland is a special case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.141.147 (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Rugxulo did or didn't do is largely irrelevant. What you need to discuss here is whether or not there is enough significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a fair bit of discussion about post-codes in Ireland at the moment. I have sent reference material to my TDs on several occasions so that they know what the options are. It is obviously unlikely that an elected representative is an expert in any given area and they depend on their staff and their constituents to bring things to their attention. Providing them with a source of info to get up to speed is useful. This article does a good job of explaining and referencing a number of options. The comment about only referencing blogs is rather sad coming from a resource also not published by an authoritative organisation. As for the post codes and the geocodes dichotomy, I don't see that as required. Post codes get assigned a number of ways - geocoding could be one of them. Kevin Lyda (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm collapsing this (after my attention was drawn to it via an OTRS ticket) because it's not relevant to the articles notability; speculating about each other is not useful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment The issue here is not whether there should be an article on Irish Geocodes or whether Irish Geocodes should be mentioned in an article on Irish Postcodes (both seem very justifiable) The real issue here is to decide whether such an article can be created and written mainly by somebody who has a Conflict Of Interest; i.e. someone who has personal interest in one of the coding systems prominently featured in the article. This article was created by (Redacted) So the question is, does Wikipedia support an article written by someone whose product features as part of the article or should the article be written by all the respective owners of all the products mentioned or should it be written by somebody who is completely independent. My opinion is that it should be written by somebody completely independent so that each product is treated equally. It is also worth noting that the article is mainly contributed to by Thirty-six dragons and IP addresses that have similar origins, and the unsigned comment above may also have the same origins. This suggests that obfuscation is being used to protect the identity of the principal contributor. It therefore seems appropriate that the article be deleted to await an independent author. 80.233.73.183 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] User name changes are a matter of wikipedia record and are not "obfuscation" - though I am not sure if they are a matter of public record and perhaps it is not appropriate to have devulged that information here. (Ironically a complaint made by someone not logged in.) Users are also entitled to privacy. Be careful that you do not bring Wikipedia into disrepute by publishing private information. Private names of users are not a matter of public record. IP addresses of logged in users are not a matter of public record either. There are not many variations of IP addresses for public ISP users in Ireland. 80.233.73.183 is O2 Mobile Broadband in Ireland - iPhone user probably. Same network as many many other iPhone users in Ireland. "The issue here is not whether there should be an article on Irish Geocodes." No, that is very much the issue. That's kind of what AfD is all about - deciding on whether or not we should have an article about something. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] It does seem like a notable topic. Many articles are devoted to geocoding systems on Wikipedia. None others mention and discuss the reasoning of the Irish geocoding systems. Perhaps someone thinks "Irish" is just not notable in itself. I wonder if it was an article on "American Geocodes" would anyone question it.

I'm collapsing this (after my attention was drawn to it via an OTRS ticket) because it's not relevant to the articles notability; speculating about each other is not useful.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment The issue here is not whether there should be an article on Irish Geocodes or whether Irish Geocodes should be mentioned in an article on Irish Postcodes (both seem very justifiable) The real issue here is to decide whether such an article can be created and written mainly by somebody who has a Conflict Of Interest; i.e. someone who has personal interest in one of the coding systems prominently featured in the article. This article was created by (Redacted) So the question is, does Wikipedia support an article written by someone whose product features as part of the article or should the article be written by all the respective owners of all the products mentioned or should it be written by somebody who is completely independent. My opinion is that it should be written by somebody completely independent so that each product is treated equally. It is also worth noting that the article is mainly contributed to by Thirty-six dragons and IP addresses that have similar origins, and the unsigned comment above may also have the same origins. This suggests that obfuscation is being used to protect the identity of the principal contributor. It therefore seems appropriate that the article be deleted to await an independent author. 80.233.73.183 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User name changes are a matter of wikipedia record and are not "obfuscation" - though I am not sure if they are a matter of public record and perhaps it is not appropriate to have devulged that information here. (Ironically a complaint made by someone not logged in.) Users are also entitled to privacy. Be careful that you do not bring Wikipedia into disrepute by publishing private information. Private names of users are not a matter of public record. IP addresses of logged in users are not a matter of public record either. There are not many variations of IP addresses for public ISP users in Ireland. 80.233.73.183 is O2 Mobile Broadband in Ireland - iPhone user probably. Same network as many many other iPhone users in Ireland.

"The issue here is not whether there should be an article on Irish Geocodes." No, that is very much the issue. That's kind of what AfD is all about - deciding on whether or not we should have an article about something. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like a notable topic. Many articles are devoted to geocoding systems on Wikipedia. None others mention and discuss the reasoning of the Irish geocoding systems. Perhaps someone thinks "Irish" is just not notable in itself. I wonder if it was an article on "American Geocodes" would anyone question it.

Comment The Loc8code information listed does seem accurate and is not in question and one would expect that such a system as used by Garmin in Ireland should rightly be described properly on Wikipedia. Indeed perhaps Loc8code should have a distinct article. The GeoDirectory could be merged with An Post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirty-six dragons (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Geodirectory is very important in the Irish context. In a country with no post codes it is widely the only way addresses are validated in Ireland. It forms the basis of the post office directory. The other codes are also an important part of the Irish mapping landscape. Loc8code is used by a lot of websites and individuals with satnavs in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.18.9.33 (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I can't see anything (aside from Colapenninsula's brief suggestion to merge) that really relates to Wikipedia policies yet from anything anyone's said, I'm afraid. Let me go through the sources and explain why they're problematic :

DCENR - Postcodes : Doesn't mention the term "Irish Geocodes"
The Postcodes Report - This one's actually okay as it does mention geocodes, albeit only on one page
ComReg Postcodes Report - doesn't contain the phrase "geocode" anywhere in it
Geodiretory - a landing page. No real sourceable content on it
Google Geo Developers Blog - irrelevant, not about geocodes
GeoDirectory Downloads - a download page
CoCode official site - is a primary source and can only be used to verify it exists, not that it's notable
Loc8 Code - as above
Irish post code system launched - no mention of geocodes
All-Ireland digital address code system goes live - no mention of geocodes. Like the above sources, these would probably be better citing the parent article on Irish postcodes
Point8 App - appears to be a primary source
Loc8 Codes for Ireland - as above
Licensing Loc8 code services - as above
Loc8 Code - as above
Getting help with your Loc8 code - as above
OPCie.org - as above
OpenPostCode App - as above
OpenPostcode - as above
opcie.org - a landing page, more specific source required

Taking all of those into account, I conclude that there is only one source that even suggests that Irish Geocodes is notable enough to deserve a standalone article, which isn't really enough, I'm afraid. Now, come on chaps, you need to provide convincing counter-arguments against the sources. Who did what where and when and why is generally irrelevant to a subject's notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Reply

Firstly, we are not all either "guys" or "chaps".

"Who did what where and when and why is generally irrelevant to a subject's notability." - and yet the article's deletion debate follows an interesting period of edits where user accounts were brought into question and wilful vandalism of corrective entries was repeated. It is an interest pedigree to this question.

Notability is not the same as sourced. Something might be notable without having a long list of sources. Irish geocodes are a real world reality that form a part of GIS studies in Ireland. However this is not either the case here. Appropriate sources to verify the content exist.

To redress the list above:

DCENR - Postcodes : The source is placed as a source on the introduction of Irish postcodes. It presents verifiability for the statement. "The model will be capable of being further refined into a location-based code." Merely searching for the word "geocode" is not equivalent to grown-up educated reading. (An article about abolutionism could conconceivably reference a source on American slavery traditions without using the word "abolutionism". It might be expected that a critical analysis of the article would be conducted by someone who understood what the words meant.) Word count is not analysis. Geocode is a word that can be researched on wikipedia; has many related articles; and can be understood as the appropriate word for what the non-specialist might refer to as a location-based code.
The Postcodes Report - Counting pages is not a widely respected academic approach to criticism. The reports details the GeoDirectory, PON Codes (now Loc8codes) and GoCodes. Pages 16 to 20. However the entire report is also germaine to the content being verified and surrounds the field of study that creates location identifiers.
ComReg Postcodes Report - As 1 above, a trivial word search is not valid criticism of a source. The source refers to the mention of postcode introduction. It is a source of further information. It documents the background understanding which is the landscape within which the location-codes in Ireland seek to provide a solution. Page 13 details recommendations for postcodes which is extremely relevant as an introductory source. Appendix 4 documents the "Design and Structure of Postcodes" which geolocation codes in Ireland seek to answer. I believe there are other more up-to-date sources from Government, but we understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise in building articles - not in provided complete unimpeachable articles from the outset.
Geodiretory - verifies the existence of the mentioned service and addresses the text it references. It presents, as per Wikipedia guidelines, "descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person." The Wikipedia article on PepsiCo, for example, includes a reference to its website.
Google Geo Developers Blog - It is directly relevant to the statement in the text. GeoDirectory database is used by Google. This may not seem notable to someone from another country, but it is currently the only address verification method in Ireland and as per this example permeates nearly all address entry services in the state. Again the lack of the word "geocode" in the article is not at all an intelligent argument the use of the source. The word "geocode" has a meaning - should one understand the meaning and one would understand the text one is reading, however this cannot be done by a word search. The entire concept of a Wikipedia article is required to be "notable" - it does not mean that the deconstructed pieces of the article in themselves need to all be exactly notable in themselves. Language and understanding is not just the sum of its mechanical parts.
GeoDirectory Downloads - Of course it is a download page. It is the download page for the referenced database. Someone isn't even reading the article here!
CoCode official site - This serves to verify the real world existence of this code and service. Without this reference the statement is not immediately verifiable. The statement to be verified is basically: "there is a code called a GoCode". The source does this.
Loc8 Code - Real world verification.
Irish post code system launched - Describes the Loc8code as a secondary source. Refer to Geocodes for an informed understanding of the concept before getting too trivial about this article assassination.
All-Ireland digital address code system goes live - Irish postcodes is not by definition or necessity a "parent article". Ireland doesn't have postcodes. The Wikipedia article on Irish postcodes describes the process and debate of their introduction. Irish Geocodes need never become postcodes. They work independently of any postcode system. Loc8code is a geocode. Geocodes are of notability in GIS in themselves. It is a valid secondary source describing the Loc8code.
Point8 App - A primary source as a verification of the reality of a statement. Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person." The entire article is not based on primary sources.
Loc8 Codes for Ireland - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
Licensing Loc8 code services - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
Loc8 Code - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
Getting help with your Loc8 code - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
OPCie.org - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
OpenPostCode App - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
OpenPostcode - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
opcie.org - This appears to be an incorrect reference and does not support the statement in the text. It should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.177.180 (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article has merit. I found it informative (didn't know there was an open source post code —never mind one for ireland)

Are you being a bit rigid on the sources question? E.g.I think citations #1,2 and 3 are meant to verify the fact that Ireland has no postcode and that the Irish Gov are currently considering the introduction of a postcode. Seems ok to me. I can't see why it would specifically need to have "Irish Geocode" in it for that?

(I think geocode in this article is meant as a generic, catch all term for any geographic code such as a post code, so looking for explicit usage of the term in the citations might be a bit unfair —but I think the article does need to clarify what exactly a geocode is.)

I think the information in the article should be kept by merging it as a subsection of Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland thus complying with ~~WP:NCC~~ WP:NNC on notability.

I think many of the other citations comply with WP:SELFSOURCE. Some of them are a bit lazily implemented like citation #19 for the open source one. Being open source there is quite a bit of info on that web site, it just needs a more specific link. Copy editing would fix that.Sun Ladder (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

self-published sources and primary sources can be used to verify factual information. What they can never be used for is to help establish notability (and hence why an article should stay), as it is not independent coverage. You need all three of significant, independent, reliable for a source to contribute towards an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is left after removing the promotional material (I don't think there will be much left) to Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland per WP:CONTENTFORK. Miniapolis 13:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does the "Irish" bit in the title mean developed in Ireland, used in Ireland or only recognised in Ireland? 62.40.34.217 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Irish" means a related to a country. You might have heard of Ireland. Apparently there are more countries in the world than yours. Geocodes are location codes. These were designed for a single country: Ireland. Thus: "Irish". The article does give sources for their origin also and they also happen to be Irish.
I find the "notability" arguments hard to understand in Wikipedia that will list and detail the episodes of any nonsense USA TV show that is churned out of self-promoting corporate media while discounting a mathematical and algorithic exposition of important geocodes. This article might sit better with complaints if merged with the general Geocode article. Or is this also due for deletion as unnotable. Perhaps it is just "Irish" that is unnotable. (Personal attack removed). An exposition of C-squares exists with 1 self-referential reference. Not Irish.
No commentary here on the deletion of this article demonstrates any knowledge on the subject of geocoding and entirely anti-intellectual. If I don't understand why something is important: then it must not be important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.149.248 (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Comparison

Geocodes listed at Geocode and with separate pages in Wikipedia.

ISO 6709 0 references.
C-squares 1 self-referential reference.
FIPS codes (determined to be so notable it has 4 articles in total; almost entirely self-referential).
- FIPS country code 4 references.
- FIPS place code 8 references (all by the government that sponsors the code).
- FIPS county code 2 references (all by the government that sponsors the code).
- FIPS state code 5 references (all by the government that sponsors the code).
Geohash 8 references.
Georef 3 notes.
HASC 0 references.
IATA airport code 3 references (2 self-referential).
ICAO airport code 1 reference.
IANA country code redirected to article with 8 references.
IOC country code 5+ references and many more notes.
ISO 3166 4 self-referential references.
ITU-R country code 0 references.
ITU-T country calling code Redirected to article with 6 references.
ITU-T mobile calling code Redirected to article with 180 references.
Maidenhead Locator System 0 references.
MARC country code 6 references.
Marsden Square 0 references.
NAC 0 references.
NUTS 12 references.
ONS 0 references.
OpenStreetMap general article on OpenStreetMap.
Postal code 13 references.
Quarter Degree Grid Cells 2 references.
UN M.49 6, all self-referential references.
SGC codes, 0 references.
UN/LOCODE, 24 self-referential references.
UTM Redirected to article with 9 references.
WMO squares 0 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.176.210 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Notability: I made this point before but I messed up the wikilink, and thus messed up the point. I think by merging it as a subsection of Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland would comply with WP:NNC "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article" on notability.Sun Ladder (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2013 (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 Warrior (Kesha album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural (Kesha song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS grossly. No independent third party coverage, no critical reception other than that found in the album reviews, no independent notability and no commercial prominence in terms of live performances and chart actions. I'd say delete this. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Warrior (Kesha album). Sources originally indicated this was going to be a single. We know now that that is not the case. There is information worth keeping that could benefit the article about the album upon which the song appears. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album page, since it's not a single or a relevant song. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 17:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warrior (Kesha album). Grande (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warrior (Kesha album). The song itself fails notability, since it wasn't even released as a single. HillbillyGoat (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2013 (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 Warrior (Kesha album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Love (Kesha song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS grossly. No independent third party coverage, no critical reception other than that found in the album reviews, no independent notability and no commercial prominence in terms of live performances and chart actions. I'd say delete this. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album page, since it's not a single or a relevant song. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 17:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warrior (Kesha album). Grande (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Warrior (Kesha album). The song was not released as a single, so it's not notable on its own merits; however, the collaboration with Iggy Pop renders it worthy of expanded discussion on the album page. HillbillyGoat (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warrior (Kesha album). All relevant information regarding the song's composition and criticism already appear in the parent article; I have already edited that article extensively. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warrior (Kesha album) per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:38, 23 April 2013 (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 Nomination withdrawn. I guess it's premature to nominate it now; perhaps waiting a week will better enable us to see what to do with the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 MIT campus shooting[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, I do not believe this article is notable enough for inclusion. It is an isolated incident in which only one person was killed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this link will work later today, but check this out. It was enough for me to remove the notability tag I placed. Ryan Vesey 05:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, here's a text-based link [32]. While not included in the article, there's been a carjacking with gunfire and explosives. Ryan Vesey 05:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of these sources --Guerillero | My Talk 05:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If AfDs normally run a week we could either speculate for 7 days or wait until day 6 and discuss it then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All hell is breaking loose in Boston at this moment. This is an ongoing situation. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too early to delete; if it turns out to only warrant a paragraph, it should be merged with some other article. There's also an incident in Watertown, Massachusetts happening at the same time that may or may not be directly related. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now for possible merge to Boston Marathon bombings should the link be made. Qworty (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2013 (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 Sudan People's Liberation Army. Military of South Sudan, the suggested target, redirects to Sudan People's Liberation Army. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navy of South Sudan[edit]

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

There is a talk page comment indicating the user's rationale for creating this, which is why I didn't just speedy it — but despite that, I don't believe that it's necessary for Wikipedia to have an article just to state that its topic doesn't even exist. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Military of South Sudan which should note the lack of navy, would be fairly sensible? Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no such organization exists. Anotherclown (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Military of South Sudan as suggested by Barney - a handful of land-locked countries have raised naval forces (see Navies of landlocked countries), so it's plausible that readers could search to see if the South Sudanese military has a maritime force. Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nick-D. Come on guys, obtain some solid information about the Sudan People's Liberation Army; let's not waste time with this stuff!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs)
Redirect Agree with points made by Barney and Nick-D. HillbillyGoat (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2013 (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 Sevyn Streeter. Some merging of content can also be done. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Like It (Sevyn Streeter song)[edit]

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

Lacks evidence that it is notable. Koala15 (talk · contribs) previously redirected the page to the article Sevyn Streeter, but a user reverted this. I think that it should be changed back to a redirect. Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NSONG note. Zoke (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added more information to the Article. Lindenhurst Liberty (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My position stands, all that was added was her own description of her song, and the fact that it was featured well on some obscure Canadian website. Zoke (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I highly doubt this song will ever hold any notability, and if we just redirect it then someone will come along an un redirect it. Koala15 (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 more references and chart information have been added to the article , also the song peaked at #3 on the Billboard Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Chart, [33] and has received 1547 plays, 8.037 audience on the BDSradio charts [34] Lindenhurst Liberty (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: Relisted to allow discussion of new sources. —Darkwind (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song has reached #27 on the iTunes Top 100 R&B Songs Chart. [35] and can be downloaded on iTunes. [36] Lindenhurst Liberty (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sevyn Streeter. All I'm finding for the song are brief mentions [37][38][39]; nothing there I'd consider in-depth coverage. That said, information like the song's release date and chart appearance are certainly reasonable enough to add to the artist's main article. Gong show 08:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sevyn Streeter. Despite its chart appearance, the song is not notable except in the larger context of the artist. HillbillyGoat (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of leather gloves in fiction[edit]

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

This seems to be a collection of trivia about the appearance of leather gloves in fiction, as satirized in this xkcd comic. Also original research. ... discospinster _talk 04:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as trivia collection. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not without regret, and with kudos for the pure randomness of this article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Truly an excellent article... needs better sources, though. The Yahoo! answers and Youtube clips fail per WP:RS... Deltopia (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia. Delete per xkcd. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's time to take the gloves off of Wikipedia as chaotic trivia. Somebody had a bit too much time on their (no doubt leather-clad) hands. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless someone can find a book or two written on the subject... Grande (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple, but I got distracted looking at the pictures..... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I found it quite enjoyable to read, I must suggestion deletion on the basis that it's a collection of trivia on a very obscure subject. HillbillyGoat (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is hilarious, bizarre, and quirky, but it's not encyclopedic. Chri$topher 23:29, 23 April 2013 (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 by RHaworth, non-admin closure hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 09:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operating Systems Design and Implementation[edit]

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

Non notable; references are rankings. Could not find any significant coverage Mjeromee (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested CSD under Cat A7; non notable organization/conference group. -T.I.M^(Contact) 03:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:04, 19 April 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Munich American High School Faculty[edit]

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

List of high-school faculty members, most if not all non-notable. Article created after faculty list removed from Munich American High School per WikiProject Schools guidelines. Author declined PROD; on talk page, stated "The Alumni are getting old and the names of the faculty will be lost if it is not kept in Wiki which will be around for centuries...I agree the faculty are not famous. Would appreciate the retention of the page." Ammodramus (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the 1960s, I was taught by a dozen or so on this list, and it's nice to see their names, but it's not at all appropriate for Wikipedia. It's been copied already to an alumni website. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely WP:NOTMEMORIAL, if anything. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 09:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inappropriate and trivial. --Bob Re-born (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. I'm glad to see that an alumni site picked up these names, as they should be preserved somewhere. Unfortunately for the editor in question here, Wikipedia ain't it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:58, 25 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Living Under Drones (academic study)[edit]

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

Article is about an academic study. The Wikipedia page Drone attacks in Pakistan is dedicated to the subject of the study. The article should be incorporated as a reference into that page. Skcpublic (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main article on drone attacks in Pakistan. In fact, this would be more appropriate as a source for that article and nothing more, though there are a few sentences here that might be worth keeping (in the main article). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Drone attacks in Pakistan; subject of this AfD does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources. Study is related to a notable subject, and would fall within its scope, as such a merger and redirect is a good solution that doesn't involve outright deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article title isn't useful as a redirect. For those advocating a merge, what material do you believe is suitable for a merge? -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable in and of itself; unlikely redirect name; nothing worth merging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 26 April 2013 (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. A7 Secret ^account 02:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Baseball League[edit]

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

This article is not notable and there are only two sources: a brief news article and the website of the Ultimate Baseball League (which itself is a dead link). There are no Google Books results that are relevant and Google News archive has only three relevant articles, all of which talk about the proposed start-up of the league; nothing confirms that the league actually played a single game. It appears that the Ultimate Baseball League is defunct and may never have actually begun. Regardless, no sources exist to verify the content of this article. Sxg169 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 19. Snotbot t • c » 01:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only source noted is the main website, can't use that to establish notability. Wizardman 15:19, 19 April 2013 (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 Respirator. Copyvio of www.articlesbase.com/wellness-articles/impact-of-air-pollution-dust-and-smoke-on-human-lungshealth-6546870.html (disallowed due to spam filter). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pollution mask[edit]

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

Appears to be a fork of the Respirator article, and was created by a user blocked for advertising medical supplies. Article reads like a product description (available in grey color only). Trebonius (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge If the nominator doesn't like the way the article reads, then ordinary editing should be used per our editing policy. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to respirator. I'm not seeing anything that warrants a standalone article, but something might be worth merging. The title is a useful search term though and should be a blue link. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to respirator. The article itself doesn't have enough information on the actual product to justify its independence (most of it appears to relate to pollution and its effects on human health, rather than the pollution mask), but the use of respirators to block pollutants from entering the airways seems like something that should probably be mentioned. Chri$topher (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. The WP:DICDEF concern has been addressed. In any case, there's no chance of deletion now — at most merge and/or redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinaman (porcelain)[edit]

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

This is a definition and should be in the Wiki Dictionary Kanuk (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 19. Snotbot t • c » 01:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the nominator wants to put this in Wiktionary then he may do so, but this is not a reason to delete the stub here. The English trade in chinaware was quite extensive and there is much more to say about it. Here's a couple of books, for example: China Trade Porcelain and The Chinese Taste in Eighteenth-Century England. The topic is therefore notable and our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This stub is not about the English trade in Chinese ceramics (Chinese export porcelain) but the person who dealt with the trade. Funny ^Pika! 18:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the stub is not about the trade. It is plainly and simply a definition of an occupation. It is a clear and simple definition. Any pertinent information about the occupation of a Chinaman could be put in the article noted by FunnyPika. This is not a situation to which the preserve policy applies, it is one to which the Definitions policy applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanuk (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 April 2013

This article was created in 2007, Recommended for deletion in 2010, objection by aforesaid Colonel Warden. Nothing of any consequence has been done with it since 2010, indeed since 2007. This "article" has all of the qualities of a definition. No one has seen it as an article to be expanded in 6 years. Likely because that one line says all there is to say by way of definition of a term related to a specific occupation. If this has the possibility of become an article then this is the opportunity for someone to come forward and take on the task. My proposal was to put it where it belongs. If another editor has a better idea then, that editor should go for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanuk (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 April 2013

Delete per nom. Hard to see how it could be expanded beyond a one-line definition. At best, it rates a mention in Chinese export porcelain. Even in books, it gets a single sentence: "Their [East India Company] method of sale was by auction, mainly to dealers; the porcelain dealers were called 'Chinamen'."[40] "[East India] Company records from the end of the century provide detailed information about how these auctions were arranged at the end of the century, when dealers, usually called 'India merchants' or 'China-men,' bought large lots for resale."[41] Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If that one sentence hasn't been expanded upon in years, despite a prior AfD on the same grounds, then we can only assume that there's nothing more to say about the subject. As the nominator stated, it's a definition, not an article. The creator can make a dictionary entry (or not, it's up to them), but a single sentence is not sufficient for a standalone article of an encyclopedic nature. It could be merged with one of the articles on Chinese ceramics, but given how easy it would be to add the definition in a direct edit of those pages instead, I see no reason to do even that. HillbillyGoat (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have expanded the article. The confident claims above that this could not be done are thereby refuted. I shall now put the article forward at DYK and so expect it to be on the main page as soon as we have dispensed with this disruptive discussion. Warden (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone said that it couldn't technically be expanded, but I don't think that the fact that you added info on the sale of china and chinese export porcelain that would be better served in the other suggested articles negates anyones arguments above. Contrary to what you might believe, scrounging for bits of information so it can be spread thinly among numerous articles is not the best way to make an encyclopedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the term "chinaman" seems to be without a doubt used far less than phrases like "china salesman" or "china vendor". You're trying far too hard to turn an article about a non notable term into an article on china sales in general, quoting minutia which would, once again, fit better in the greater article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:48, 25 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Castle (restaurant)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Zoke (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just modify the search term to "Royal Castle" Trinidad and you will find many reliable sources that establish notability for this chain of restaurants in the Carribean. Just one example is a book called Food Culture In The Carribean. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unremarkable tiny chain of snack stands. I can't find any substantial coverage of it, just tangential mentions. Limited local significance, and no significance at all outside the local area. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as these sources help establish notability: [42] [43] [44] —Darkwind (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources support the conclusion that this is a significant chain in that part of the world. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've examined the sources provided above. They are only brief and tangential mentions. Nothing approaching our requirements for substantial coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH. The "best" source gives two short sentences. The next is just a namedrop in a discussion on a different topic, hot sauces. The third is a just a listing in a travel guide. Furthermore, none of them indicate that the topic is notable on more than a local scale. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darwen Panaire[edit]

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

Non notable, Again It seems this bus was never built, or If It was there's no info. –
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources regarding the subject, clearly fails WP:GNG. Possible hoax. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 01:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe this is a hoax; the creator has a history of consructive edits on bus-related articles. However, it appears to fail notability guidelines. I tried a Google search for (darwen panaire bus OR coach) and found almost nothing apart from wikis and the like. A Google search for (optare panaire bus OR coach) produced a similar lack of results (Darwen took over Optare in 2008, retiring "Darwen" in favor of "Optare"). Per the article, the model was launched in 2007, so if there'd been significant coverage, it would've shown up online. Fails GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Not useful. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USELESS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 22 April 2013 (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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Honduras, Ottawa[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. recent AfDs have shown that embassies are not inherently notable. those wanting to keep must show sources.

Also nominating:

Embassy of Armenia, Ottawa
High Commission of Malawi in Ottawa which closed 7 years ago.
High Commission of Cameroon, Ottawa
Embassy of Portugal, Ottawa
Embassy of Kuwait, Ottawa

LibStar (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request before deciding. Can you demonstrate via Wikilinks that embassies have been shown to not be notable inherently? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is no WP guideline which says embassies are automatically notable, hence WP:ORG applies. Here's 2 recent AfDs with outcome deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Ankara and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ukraine, Bern. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin the Honduras embassy was covered in a different AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ottawa. LibStar (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin This AFD was closed in error for about 24 hours, please extend it for that amount of time. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment - This is weird. It seems that MBisanz (talk · contribs) deleted the article that is the subject of this AfD, but did not delete any of the other articles nominated. There was little participation and the debate was shown as closed for a whole day, so a relist is absolutely necessary. ~~I'll contact them as I think they did it accidentally.~~ Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article that is the subject of this AfD was deleted from a group nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ottawa. The discussion should now center on the other articles nominated, which do not have consensuses to delete. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm relisting this because although the first article has been deleted, I didn't entirely notice that the others were still open. The first article is deleted, but the rest are still up for AfD Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:34, 20 *'April 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: See above comment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No evidence of any notability Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Nick-D. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to their corresponding bilateral relations articles -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

most of these do not have corresponding bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per above. Certainly, the existence of these embassies can and should be noted in whatever lists of embassies may be found for these countries - but there is not enough notability for standalone articles at this time. (NB: I was one of several who asked Tokyogirl79 to revisit her close here) UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - each embassy shouldn't have its own page. The embassies from a representative country, or to a country should be merged. Articles can also be merged under "corresponding bilateral relations article", as suggested above, if notable. Sidelight 12 ^Talk 00:07, 25 April 2013 (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Therese of Infant Jesus Catholic Church, Kandanvilai[edit]

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

Couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. First church dedicated to this saint seems like trivia rather than notability. Age of church not significant, many old churches. Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the sources out there to declare this particular church notable as such - but, again, I could always be wrong. This isn't the sort of title that makes for a useful redirect, but if we do decide that a redirect makes sense then I would suggest targeting List of places named after St. Thérèse of Lisieux, since this church is also listed there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_historic_churches. It would be notable, assuming such could be sourced, due to its annual feast and bells. I'm not sure how being the first church named for a 'saint-to-be' would count as notable. Moreover, I don't see anything that would otherwise mark it as notable, say, large size of the building or its age (myriads of churches were built in the 1920s and are still standing). Bearian (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2013 (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.