< 19 April	21 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 rename. The page will be moved to Murder of Yetunde Price. J04n(talk page) 13:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yetunde Price[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability is not inherent. So without being rude or disrespectful how the heck does Yetunde warrant a wikipedia page. yes she was murdered (RIP). But come on. If she wasn't a sister of Venus or Serena Williams would this subject have an article. The answer would be no. I see no special case for her to have a page. She is NOT notable as she was a nurse and is only slightly notable as she was murdered creating local press on her (which if anyone argues that being a reason to keep then we should create pages for all murder victims) which was magnified because of her relatives. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Murder of Yetunde Price; although WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTMEMORIAL are clearly applicable to the subject of this AfD upon looking for reliable sources regarding the subject I found that there are multiple non-primary reliable sources that give significant coverage to the subject due to her murder and the prosecution of the individual who killed the subject of this AfD. As such it can be argued that the subject meets WP:GNG but also falls under WP:BIO1E, as such the subject's murder was notable, not the subject herself. A short biography regarding the victim could be included in an article regarding the murder and the subsequent prosecution, but not a standalone article of the subject of this AfD.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST reasoning: this is like the Lindbergh kidnapping article, Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. is not notable himself, but the event that lead to his death is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Murder of Yetunde Price, per similar articles as per above.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 00:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Cup[edit]

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

Article about an Internet-coined rivalry with no official status (compare the other MLS derbies with an actual title, e.g. Heritage Cup (MLS)), which heavily relies on unreliable sources (imgur, reddit, discussion boards – the very first source, supposedly for the name of the non-existent rivalry, is an image hosted on imgur with no such information). History section is just for filler (probably to provide what few 'legit' sources there are) as the rivalry does not exist, per se, leaving us with basically 'media reaction' to an Internet joke. All signs point to 'this isn't something for Wikipedia'. Therefore, I suggest this be deleted. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 23:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC) —Strange Passerby (t × c) 23:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable match/rivalry/term/anything. Giant Snowman 10:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article would be very acceptable on uncyclopedia but as a wikipedia article this does not have a place here for reasons already said. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NRIVALRY, sports-rivalries should pass the general notability guideline, which does one doesn't. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:46, 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) 17:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dukes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability apart from his manner of death. The article has a few more references compared with the first version that was AfD'd, but there is no material difference in the level of notability. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I said so in the first AfD, and I say so now. This is a "one event" biography. Attention came to him only because he was killed by a notable orca, Tilikum (orca). The death is already covered in the proper place, the article about the orca. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete This article does not appear to present any pertinent information that could not be included in Tilikum (orca) . Eatmark (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Eatmark[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how this person, or his death, would be considered notable by any stretch. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 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 speedy delete as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faqe interneti[edit]

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

Non english article in English Wikipedia but doesn't meet CSD criteria. Kumioko (talk) 21:46, 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 00:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beerenberg Farm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertisement-style article for a farm/small company of 50 employees. It's difficult to see any notability. Also, there are no reliable third party sources that establish notability. The only third party source cited[1] only briefly mentions it in the context of other local businesses in some area, doesn't discuss the subject in detail, and doesn't meet the requirements for establishing notability. Vanasan (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is easy to see notability. Unscintillating (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nomination statement for this nomination to which I replied was,

“

A farm/small company of 50 employees. It's difficult to see any notability. Vanasan (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

”

I am changing to Speedy keep. Subsequent to creating the nomination, and after two editors had specifically replied to the nomination and a third had posted a !vote, the nominator changed the nomination without showing the inserts, which is a bad edit as per WP:REDACT "Removing or substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deprive the reply of its original context." Fifteen hours after the nomination, the nominator now reports the presence of dead links in the article references. Since it is unlikely that these dead links went dead between the time of the nomination and 15 hours later, this is evidence that the AfD was begun without researching the references in the article. Dead links combined with WP:AGF and WP:V are verifiable evidence. Contrary to WP:N, the new nomination statement incorrectly implies that notability is defined by the content of the Wikipedia article. Similarly, the new nomination still brings no evidence (i.e., examples of searches as discussed in WP:BEFORE) that the topic either is or is not notable. There is still no analysis of any defects in the previous AfD, or why we need a new one. Unscintillating (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked one of the dead links, and that led to this link, which not only supports the notability of the topic, but indicates that there is a longer "Report" available from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Unscintillating (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is easy for me to see notability, by using the Google News Archive tool. I see many articles about this six generation family business going back to 1839, which has used modern marketing and web tools to create high visibility in the 21st century. Here is one example of significant coverage in reliable sources. Here is another. Several others are readily available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where I am from, most farms are older than 1839. That's not something exceptional, on the contrary. It's not something exceptional that the same family owns the farm either, there are probably millions of other farms on the planet owned by the same family since the 19th century. Beerenberg Farm is a very small company, founded in 1969, on a farm owned by a family since the 19th century. Completely unexceptional. As far as I can tell, a Google news search mostly produces results unrelated to the farm (there are multiple other companies called Beerenberg, eg.[2] Vanasan (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems likely that the vast majority of those other farms you mentioned are not notable. This one is, because it has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, such as the two I pointed out. Presumably, all those other farms you allude to haven't. The fact that some Google hits are false positives is irrelevant. It is the "true positives" that count. The age of the farm is not definitive with regards to notability, especially where you live. But in Australia where this farm is located, and in California where I live, ventures of that age are often considered historically significant. And this company is more than a simple farm; it is a manufacturer of branded specialty food products. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1. Source no. 1 (as of [3]) does not discuss the subject in detail but only briefly mentions it in the context of local businesses, and doesn't indicate notability.
      2. Souce no. 2 only says "403 - ACCESS DENIED"
      3. Source no. 3 says "Sorry, Page not Found"
      4. Source no. 4 doesn't mention the subject at all.
      5. Source no. 5 says "Sorry, Page not Found"
      6. Source no. 6 says "404-Page not found"
      7. And finally, source no. 7, a site that ostensibly promote local tourism in some Australian region, says "Internal Server Error"
    - So in fact, you are proposing that we retain a promotional article written as an advertisement, whose only third party source is a very very brief mention along with other local businesses in some area in a newspaper article. That source doesn't meet the requirements to establish any notability. Obviously, the notability treshold is the same for companies whether they are based in Australia or in Europe. Being a manufacturer of food products does not in itself establish notability, when the company is a small business of 50 employees. There are bigger companies that have been deleted from Wikipedia because of lack of notability. It wasn't a company in 1839, but an ordinary farm, so its business history starts only in 1969 or so. And in fact, most farms of my country are indeed the subject of some coverage in third party reliable sources. Whether books on farms in a given region, books on local history, or local newspapers. But like in this case, that does not establish notability. Vanasan (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Also, interestingly, this supposedly famous company's website[4] only says "Service Unavailable." Vanasan (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unlike most farms, this one has third-party coverage in reliable sources. Meets WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note that I'm changing from delete to speedy delete in light the above comments and the fact that the article doesn't cite a single reliable source except a brief mention here[5] that doesn't establish notability, and in light of the fact that there seems to be no adequate sources demonstrating the article to be anything else than an improper advertisement for an unnotable farm/small business. The possibility of some limited coverage in various local media that has been alluded to by some doesn't establish notability, as it's completely unexceptional that a farm or small business occasionally is mentioned in local media. Vanasan (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Vanasan's concerns, I have added five references to reliable sources, and have removed all dead links. In addition, I checked the company's website on both my desktop computer and my mobile phone. It works just fine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also had no trouble with accessing the company's website. Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability seems to have been established. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:17, 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ademola majekodunmi[edit]

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

Nothing found that could source this. CSD? Ben Ben (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G11. There may be other things that it could be tagged under, but my grief, is that article a mess! The only guideline it doesn't break is probably "no attack pages"... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:11, 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 keep. A majority of editors have argued to keep the article, and their arguments have been convincing with regards to coverage of the topic. Arguments against keeping focused on the theory's scientific merits, which is beyond the scope of this discussion, or made mistaken claims about the article's sourcing. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biocentric universe[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)

I'm not convinced this article is notable. Yes there was a splash in the news at the time, but that was all. No other, newer, sources have really been forthcoming. All sources are dated to a 2 year period (2006-2007), seems to fall afoul of (WP:NOTNEWS). There was no enduring coverage of the idea of a biocentric universe, and uptake appears to be limited to Robert Lanza himself; i.e All the sources discuss Lanza and Biocentrism together. Without any clear signs of notability, independent of Lanza (WP:NOTINHERITED) it seems that the article should be deleted, and any coverage limited to the Lanza article. Note that about half the sources are primary. Not to be confused with: Biocentrism_(ethics). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge into Robert Lanza. An idea which only one person believes in, or perhaps even understands, probably shouldn't have its own article. I don't see any problems with replacing the section of Dr. Lanza'a article with the text of this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea--that’s how it started out, but it quickly blew out of control and the editors moved it to its own page. Dragging this topic over to a living persons page would be a mistake. The cycle would occur all over again.Josophie (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC) I forgot to mention that the book "Biocentrism" was co-authored by Professor Bob Berman who has been listed as the most widely read astronomer in the world (not just Lanza) Josophie (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source please. Notability is not inherited. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Discover magazine published an article about biocentrism in 2009, Digital Journal published an article about it just last month, and Psychology Today publishes an ongoing series of articles on the topic (albeit penned by Lanza). Coverage is non-routine, significant, and not limited to any specific timeframe such as circa 2006-2007. Moreover, biocentrism is a philosophical concept, not a news item per se nor tied specifically to Lanza. Via Google Scholar, I encountered some promising sources that don't seem directly associated with Lanza's work: [6][7] I even found a paper stating that a "'biocentric' view of the universe" was proposed as far back as 1913 [8] (although I don't know to what degree that may relate to this article). It does seem to me though that the article should be expanded beyond Lanza's take on biocentrism, and perhaps even renamed to something like Biocentrism (philosophy). In short, this topic appears to satisfy WP:GNG apart from Lanza. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discover magazine article says that it is adapted from Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, by Robert Lanza with Bob Berman, published by BenBella Books in May 2009; while Psychology Today articles are written by Robert Lanza, so it is primary source. Older mentions of the word "biocentrism" don't talk about it in Lanza's sense, some of them are more closely related to biocentrism (ethics)

Existence of Biocentrism (ethics) article is the reason why this article wasn't renamed to Biocentrism (philosophy); in latest move proposal, after proposing the move to Biocentrism (metaphysics), consensus has been reached that article should be renamed to Biocentric universe. --93.139.120.41 (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC) — 93.139.120.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Digital Journal is not a reliable source, it accepts user generated content. The discovery magazine piece: Discover magazine was written by Lanza, so doesn't contribute to notability. [9][10] and [11] refer to a different topic: Biocentrism (ethics). This is evident from a cursory look at them, and also because the articles were written before biocentrism was proposed. The reason we can't have Biocentrism (philosophy) as that will cause lots of confusion with the other concept of the same name. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wolfie, you never give up. Your attacks on this page have been non-stop. You have a non-neutral POV; indeed, a conflict-of-interest, in that biocentrism/biocentric universe theory is a direct challenge to your (self-admitted) field of study. Put simply—this is a move to stuffle dessent. Your claim of lack of notability and drop-off of coverage is simply incorrect. To the contrary, according to Google the number of websites, blogs, and online material related to this topic has increased five-fold in the last year or two (from approximately 20K to 111,000 listings as of today). In fact, according to Wikipedia’s own traffic statistics, this page (that you want to delete) was viewed 18,203 times during the first three months of this year (by contrast, this page was only viewed 6769 times during the first three months of 2008). You claim there’s no new material/coverage of the idea? You ignore little facts, such as that biocentrism/biocentric universe was recently featured on the Science Channel Science (TV), on Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, among other places. New videos and blogs on the topic have been viewed millions of times. Articles on biocentrism were some of the most viewed articles on the Huffington Post and Psychology Today in recent years. Bottom line: major articles, books etc come in spurts, and my guess is that you’ve just seen the beginning of a theory ready to take off.Josophie (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please not make personal attacks against me. Your arguments are essentially WP:GOOGLEHITS based. An argument about what was the most viewed article at the time doesn't indicate long term notability (and you haven't provided enough information to prove it was the case). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this joke? Your comments against me and other editors on the Talk page have been very personal, vicious, and uncivil.Josophie (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep Notnews applies to events. Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Robert Lanza. Crank pseudoscience/pseudophilosophy. Not enough sources for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I find no Wikipedia policy saying we do not cover "crank" topics. Counting sources seems sufficient to say this particular "crank topic" has sufficient notability. Collect (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia certainly should (and does) cover crank topics if they have been shown to be notable enough and clearly identified as fringe. A common ploy of fringers is to attempt to disguise their work as mainstream science. I am not advocating deletion of this article on the grounds that it fringe but on the grounds that its topic has not yet achieved sufficient notability as demonstrated by multiple independent reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Crank? You have no idea what you’re talking about. Are the Nobel laureates and members of the National Academy of Sciences who support it cranks? Nobel laureate Thomas said “The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole.” NASA Astrophysicist David Thompson said it “is a wake-up call.” Physicist Scott Tyson said "Dr. Lanza’s writings provided me with the pieces of perspective that I had been desperately seeking [when it came to particle physics]” Dr. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, said “True, yes; politically correct, hell no.” Renowned scientist, Boyce Professor & Chairman at Wake Forest University said “This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come.” R. Stephen Berry, Franck Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago; past Home Secretary, National Academy of Sciences said “I like to see books published that challenge my own ideas and thoughts in ways that make me think, but not ones that simply throw dogma at me.” NASA Geophysicist Gunther Kletetschka said “Lanza has come up with an innovative approach to investigate reality from the viewpoint of biology.”Josophie (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is as important as its supporters claimed it to be then it will undoubtedly survive deletion on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Do you really need me to outline the significant level of references for this subject from incredibly reliable sources there are on this topic. I mean, have you seen how important editors, including the nominator of this article of deletion, have claimed negative articles about the subject are??? You can't all of the sudden claim there is no notability after wasting dozens of our volunteer hours on claiming we should be looking at negative, "reliable" sources--make up your mind!!! This article is starting to drive me crazy :) I won't even vote unless it seems necessary, on such a frivolous topic, ugh. Leave Collect alone. Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. Yes there are some sources, as I've indicated at the top, but they are short term news coverage from a single period. There is no evidence of a lasting impact which is the true demonstrator of notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you just ignore the facts. Repeating an incorrect statement doesn't make it true. Again, according to Wiki’s traffic statistics, this page was viewed over eighteen-thousand times during the first 3 months of this year (and only 6769 times during the first 3 months of 2008). As far a lasting impact, the book just came out a few years ago--give it another few years and then say that.Josophie (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't base notability by the number of views an article on wikipedia gets per WP:POPULARPAGE (also most of the hits could also be people looking for Biocentrism (ethics)). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL), we look for notability now, not as the result of some proposed future acceptance. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfie is correct here that whether the topic might become better accepted down the road doesn't matter to Wikipedia, and that website hits don't matter to its notability policy, but I don't agree with his/her application of a confusing similarity argument here as an argument against the subject's notability. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can not deny that most of what people appear to be arguing, in this very AfD, is for the notability of a slew of different topics including ethical biocentrism, Biophilia hypothesis and fine tuning arguments etc into a bit of a mishmash and not the actual proposal by Lanza, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spreading misinformation. You are dead wrong: The fine-tuning of the universe for life is one of the foundational principles of biocentrism. The fifth Principle of Biocentrism explicitly states “The very structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around.” There is an entire chapter in Robert Lanza and Bob Berman's book 'Biocentrism" devoted to the structure of the universe itself, and to the laws, forces, and constants of the universe.Josophie (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biocentrism is not the Fine-tuned Universe argument. If you want to argue it is, then that's an argument against having this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is clearly a notable topic considering all of the mainstream references that others have listed. This nomination verges on frivolous. -Jordgette [talk] 01:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mike Agricola's reasoning debunks the reasoning for deletion. Whether one believes in this or not, this topic has notability. Sidelight 12 ^Talk

Agricola showed a collection of primary sources, self published sources, and he also linked to articles that have nothing to do with this topic but are about Biocentrism (ethics). So I'm a little concerned that you think this "debunks" anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still notable. Will Biology Solve the Universe?, also the newly listed sources. Lanza's works were cited to refer to his own theory. Sidelight 12 ^Talk 23:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Robert Lanza: With exactly ZERO mention by independent scholars in the scholarly literature on philosophy and science, this theory is clearly not notable, even as fringe philosophy or science. Arguments for keep boil down to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, none of which is a reliable source for philosophical or scientific theories. Mentions in pop-lit sources like Discover and Psychology Today attest perhaps to newsworthiness and public interest, but not to notability within the scholarly community or the world at large. These sources intend solely to provide their readers entertainment, and not reliable information on serious topics. They often publish entertaining material submitted by self-aggrandizing cranks, as seems to be the case here. Topic inherits no notability from its originator. Scattered, sporadic and unrealted mentions of the term in various other sources do not support the proposition that there is a notable topic here upon which to write a free-standing article. There is already a free-standing article for any notable uses of the term at Biocentrism (ethics). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. A cursory scan found at least 70 articles on Google Scholar that specifically reference this idea (excluding the ethical concept), not to mention numerous books on AmazonJosophie (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See falsifiability. You make claims that we can't falsify. You mention 70 articles on google scholar, but provide no link so that we can actually look at it, you mention unspecified books. Pick the most reliable book, the most reliable google scholar article and show us them. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any independent cites on Google scholar that refer to the book. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You obviously didn't look. Here is a list of 27 references that Google Scholar lists just for Robert Lanza and astronomer Bob Berman’s book “Biocentrism” http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16642817250061812158&as_sdt=40000005&sciodt=0,22&hl=en Josophie (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all those sources are unreliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Below in this discussion you've characterized sources as those that were "not really reliable", which means by implication that there also exist "really reliable" sources. By extension, your usage of the word "unreliable" here creates "really unreliable" and "not really unreliable" sources. Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of arguing from semantics here. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you kindly point to me where WP:GNG requires sources for an article to come from academic sources? As far as I can tell, it doesn't, which means your argument is invalid. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing it has had an impact as a proposed theory, academic sources would be expected to exist. 10:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Additional sources out there not yet used in the article include:

Just so we all know there are additional sources out there beyond those in this article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, he got some news coverage at the time, but nothing indicative of true notability for the biocentric universe (remember Lanza himself isn't at AfD here). [12] and [13] are uncritical, and not really reliable, little above press releases. science20.com (a source I've never heard of) only gives a passing mention, because it's not about biocentrism, it doesn't even discuss it briefly. [14] is interesting, but it's opinion and informal, and from the time period I mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A ~~philosophy~~ concept is not an event, so WP:NOTNEWSPAPER does not apply, but ignoring that that point has already been noted, you say (emphasis added), "...got...news coverage at the time", and "from the time period I mentioned". Unscintillating (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both of those quotes referring to the newspaper coverage at the time of the event. What an event is, is rather ill-defined. The event is the period just before and after the release of his Biocentrism book. The news coverage is standard coverage of a topic that is quirky, but there is no lasting sign of enduring notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that a concept is actually the release of a book, in order to assert that the concept is an event that got newspaper coverage so can be excluded under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, does not make it so. A concept is not, as per Wiktionary, "An occurrence; something that happens." Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that most of the coverage is actually related to the release of the book, and Lanza's promotion work around that. That is why it's in that two year period. That is an event. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you are making false statements. When the theory came out in the American Scholar in 2007, it was followed by an equal or greater amount of coverage. The same thing happened when other pieces on the topic appeared in journals and major websites in recent years. The overall coverage (except for a few spikes here and there) has been consistent (and increasing) over the years as witnessed by Google citations and Wiki's own numbers.Josophie (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are more than enough sources to demonstrate notability, and even for the sake of argument accepting what IRWolfie- says: "All sources are dated to a 2 year period (2006-2007)" we don't delete articles just because no-one is writing about them any more, and I agree with Unscintillating above that IRWolfie- is being tricky in trying to cast this article as about a news event. Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, notability is not temporary. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources already listed in the article, as well as a few more added in the discussion above. Additionally, here is a sampling of other articles that reference biocentrism:

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2011.0786
http://isle.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/274.short
http://smithsonianrex.si.edu/sisp/index.php/pop/article/view/289
http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/6/622.short
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1627486
http://www.dhushara.com/cosfcos/cosfcos.html
http://jis.athabascau.ca/index.php/jis/article/view/26
http://cct.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/Ch+12+-+final.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 29sh00 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you differentiate for us the difference between those based on Lanza's ideas and those for the ethical concept, which is different? Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 specifically discusses whether or not the universe is fine-tuned for life and biocentric. References 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all specifically cite Lanza (Biocentrism 2009). 29sh00 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biocentrism is not to be confused with Fine-tuning arguments. Also, being cited isn't the same as significant coverage. For example, this piece [15] you cited, is about William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, has a footnote to the text "Human life certainly plays a significant role in current ecological theories, from the Gaia hypothesis that views the earth as a self-regulating superorganism to the biophilia hypothesis.", the footnote says "See Kellert and Wilson. See also Lanza and Berman. The biophilia hypothesis and the concept of biodiversity both imply the value (to humans) of non-human life forms. Gaia as a ...". It's in reference to the Biophilia hypothesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Lanza. It has no independent notability. It was covered at the time, but has no significant importance. To the extent it's meaningful, it would be considered fringe, and non notable fringe at that. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this completely inappropriate. "Biocentrism" was written and developed by BOTH Robert Lanza and astronomer Bob Berman. Not just one person. This is a topic, not about a single living personJosophie (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can someone please produce the talk page discussions that resulted in this article being taken out of the Lanza page, so that we do not just simply move back and forth on the issue. If the article was created due to a decision that the material should not be on the Lanza page, let's at least take that into consideration here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 1) There are more than enough sources listed here and in the article to support notability. 2) If Bob Berman is a co-author, shouldn't this theory have its own article instead of being merged into Lanza's article? 3) There are references listed in this discussion that are not yet included in the article. I don't understand why we're debating a merge or deletion before adding available information. HtownCat (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an AfD for the book, but the concept, which Lanza alone appears to consistently promote and be associated with. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As others above have indicated, your arguments to delete this page are frivolous. Lanza alone? There are over a 100,000 websites promoting the concept biocentrism/biocenric universe (check Google)Josophie (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop with the grandiose and nonsensical promotion. 100,000 hits from google doesn't mean there are 100,000 websites promoting the concept. Also read WP:GOOGLEHITS, which I already mentioned. It's a non-argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfie is right here and it is getting distracting, even if his words aren't exactly assuming of good faith.Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not Merge: Obviously this article isn't getting deleted, but I'm concerned about the push to merge the article. The subject means GNG from the sources already in the article, and notability is not temporary. To merge the article would make no sense, as this article is quite lengthy in comparison to the Lanza article and merging it would give undue balance to the subject of Biocentrism in Lanza's career if added to his page. That means a lot of this article would have to be removed (items that are well-sourced) in order to not create an undue balance to the subject in the Lanza article. It is a sneaky backdoor way of culling parts of the article, rather than letting it stand, in my opinion. Many of these arguments here are based on the faulty belief that academic articles are required to discuss a hypothetical situation, which is just not true. News sources are fine. It is also complete nonsense that a concept must have a lot of adherents to appear on Wikipedia; it just has to be notable. There seems to be a whole lot of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT going on here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to vote: I would also point to WP:PAGEDECIDE as a much better source to make our decision. Clause one asks if a page needs context for a subject to be understood, which Biocentrism clearly does due to its controversial nature, so that means it should have its own standalone page. Clause two has to do with related topics, and Lanza's career and Biocentrism are separate enough to merit Biocentrism a stand alone page. Clause three warns against created a permanent stub, and let's just say this article is not a stub. The policy also warns against making a decision on our likes and dislikes, which I feel is being done above. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've read that backwards. The "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page" is an example of a case to not have a separate article. You have argued for a merger. Biocentrism is inexplicably tied to lanza, any source that discusses it discusses Lanza. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just silly. There is no larger article, this one is comparable to the Lanza article :) Nice try though. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try? read the the examples they give. They are for sections that don't have stand alone articles, but are placed in context in another article. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice try :) You ignore most of the argument for the one thing you might be able to pick apart. 1) You're misreading the document, 2) you're distracting the overall argument, and 3) as long as I have you here, why on earth would you be heavily involved in editing an article for over a year and then suddenly try to delete it? Something smells fishy here beyond the red herrings :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lanza and biocentrism are two different subjects. If it is showing to have notability, why is it then suggested to be merged? Sidelight 12 ^Talk 23:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from article. Sidelight 12 ^Talk 02:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seven days into the AfD, and, in spite of abundant Google dumping, still not a single word in a single source that can be considered reliable for either philosophical or scientific topics, and not a single source that can be used to establish notability, even as a fringe topic. The WP:LOTSOFSOURCES provided attest only to limited and fleeting newsworthiness and popularity within the fringe community, but not at all to notability within the schoalrly philosophical or scientific communities, or to any lasting notability in the world at large. Still see nothing worth saving, and if the editors at the proposed merge target, Robert Lanza, agree that it doesn't belong there, there is no point in merging. Sorry, it's just a fart in the wind, like so many similar "theories of everthing" the WooWooSphere is littered with. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) You seem to think scientific notability is relevant here, this is a conceptual matter that passes GNG. The entire point to the last argument about this page, the RFC for name change, was that it was neither a philosophical page nor a firm scientific page. It is about an idea. And ideas can be notable. 2) Notability is not temporary, so your fleeting argument is moot. 3) This is not a theory of everything, it is an idea to put biology first in science, please try and familiarize yourself with the subject matter. 4) Please try and be a little bit more civil there DV. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange, because some of the keep votes, Josophie, are arguing it's a theory of everything, and yet I don't see you berating them. Proponents purport it to be a theory of everything. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be amply demonstrated here for any reasonable editor that this is notable and well sourced, despite the usual handwaving from a relative few who typically argue their own expertise against the sources, because they "know" the "Truth" of the matter. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I admit that I was somewhat hasty in composing my earlier "keep" vote and didn't look closely enough at some of the sources I found via a quick Google search. However, after taking the time to give this a more careful consideration, my "keep" vote still stands. This article is about a *concept* that impacts broadly on science, metaphysics and even theology/spirituality. It is not an event, so the limitation that WP:NOTNEWS imposes on duration of coverage cannot apply here. As others have pointed out, the notability of a metaphysical concept is not temporary. Moreover, a concept does not need to have extensive coverage in peer-reviewed journals to be notable according to WP's standards. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES warns against accepting sources that are not reliable and may only have trivial mentions. This AfD and the article's reference already contain multiple sources published by reliable media outlets that are independent and cover the topic at significant length. Although not peer-reviewed, WP in general still accepts sources of this nature as reliable so long as the media outlet utilizes a system of editorial review and holds to professional journalism standards. Finally, I located a few additional sources too that appear to be of good quality: A review of Lanza's version of biocentrism was penned by Dr. Vinod Kuma, an associate editor of the journal Phase Transitions, and posted on Nirmukta. Other reviews were published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (PDF file) and the Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research. The WP article about the Journal of Scientific Exploration states that it is peer-reviewed and the other aformentioned journal offers at least some degree of peer review [16]. Considering all these sources collectively, it is still my opinion that WP:GNG is met. --Mike Agricola (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to base your reasoning off the Journal of Scientific Exploration please read the entire article: "Critics of the journal regard it as a forum for promoting, not investigating, fringe science". It's not a reliable source, the same with Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research by "QuantumDream, Inc.". Nirmukta is a blog, it's fine for personal opinions and to provide NPOV, but it's not a secondary source of information. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is founded upon the availability of many sources which collectively satisfy WP:GNG and not on the Journal of Scientific Exploration alone or any other single source. Even if none of the three sources I mentioned as an addendum to my comment are acceptable, the collective weight of all the media sources which have published significant coverage of this concept is still sufficient to make the article notable. However, let's consider these two of these sources at greater length. (1) A blog can be a reliable secondary source under certain conditions: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable." Vinod Kuma, the blog's author, is a professional researcher commenting on the scientific aspects of Lanza's biocentrism, so that is within his field. Moreover, Nirmukta is the organizational publication (in the format of a blog) for an Indian Freethought society of that name; it's not Kuma's personal blog. (2) The papers and reviews the JSE publishes are all peer-reviewed by well-qualified individuals. That system of editorial control and review by qualified individuals makes it a WP:RS, even though it has received criticism for publishing papers on controversial topics. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie, You didn't mention that you are partially citing yourself, and that your edit was added without a citation. Unscintillating (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what, therefore it's bullshit? The fringe promotion part is cited from statements by Frazier and Kalichman. JSE has a bad reputation, and it's not reliable for anything except opinion. Let me quote Jimbo Wales, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_85#Can_a_controversial_subject_make_reference_to_subject-relevant_peer-reviewed_journals.3F: "To be clear on my view. Based on this conversation, it seems abundantly clear that SciEx is completely and utterly useless as a source for anything serious at all. People who publish such things, and participate in such things, should be ashamed of themselves. The Journal may have some value as a source, if it is influential amongst crackpots, to document the sort of nonsense that they are willing to publish while pretending to academic standards." IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice red herrings, your choice to associate yourself with a term for excrement is reminiscent of DV above bringing a word for flatulence "generally considered unsuitable in formal situations" into this discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of the word "promotion" suggests that Richard Conn Henry was writing in JSE to promote...just what? The JSE, Richard Conn Henry, or maybe the Johns Hopkins University astronomy department? And are you implying that Jimbo Wales was calling the Johns Hopkins University astronomy department crackpots? According to our article, [Johns Hopkins University School of Arts and Sciences], the JHU "...~~Astronomy~~ Physics & Astronomy department [is] among the top-ranked in the nation". Or maybe you think that Jimbo Wales literally means that Richard Conn Henry should be ashamed of himself? No, you've taken the meaning out of context. The attention given by Richard Conn Henry in JSE to the topic is evidence of notability, which says nothing and need say nothing about whether or not the topic itself is considered to be on the fringes of science, or science at all, or something "serious". As per WP:IRS, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." WP:IRS has much more to say, but the sum remains that this article on JSE dated September 2009 is reliable for the purpose of observing, as per the nutshell of WP:N, that the topic has received attention from the world at large over a period of time. Unscintillating (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is a blatant straw man, and you know it. Obviously it implies nothing about the JHU as a whole. Despite what fringe proponents would claim, scientists don't lose their jobs just because they publish in fringe journals, and it also doesn't mean his faculty agree with him. Brian Josephson, for example, is known for his fringe opinions on fringe issues, but that clearly doesn't mean people in Cambridge agree as a whole with what he says, or that we treat his opinion as expert opinion on fringe issues. He has an opinion, he's entitled to it, but that doesn't mean we treat it as expert. We don't treat those comments published in fringe journals as reliable expert opinions. Richard Conn Henry is an astronomer, he is not a cosmologist, though the difference may be lost on you; so what expertise is he bringing to the table exactly (protip: Astronomers don't need expertise in quantum mechanics)? Significant coverage in reliable mainstream scientific publications would be a better indicator of notability. The same notability requirement for other fringe theories, say Conformal cyclic cosmology. Fringe unreliable sources aren't reliable indicators of notability. If you want to argue something unreliable is notable at the very least you look to mainstream sources; i.e stuff that lots of people actually look at IRWolfie- (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing my questions as a "blatant straw man" is avoidance, not an answer. It was very important to you in the discussion with Mike Agricola to get on the record that JSE was involved in "promotion", but when I ask about the case specific to this AfD, there is no explanation. Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've used the word "fringe" eight times, which appears to be more in the way of argument by assertion and POV pushing than learned discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you count how many times someone uses a particular word and that somehow translates into whether it is an argument by assertion. That makes sense, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your claim that astronomers are not qualified to write on cosmology, if you look at the article on cosmology, you will see (emphasis added) that "Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as astronomers..." As for your "protip", Richard Conn Henry is also an astrophysicist, and if you read the review you will see that the term "quantum mechanics" appears four times therein, not that that has anything at all to do with WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"if you look at the article on cosmology, you will ..." No. You are wrong, and citing other wikipedia articles to prove something when you complain about other articles is just plain silly (particularly when it's tagged with an OR tag, cites the Oxford dictionary as its source, and the entire article only has 6 references ... ). I have relevant qualifications in Astronomy, I know where the expertise of astronomers and astrophysics lie. Yet here you are citing a paragraph cited to the Oxford dictionary (but which fails verification) in a class C wikipedia article for your proof like you somehow win the argument. Astronomers do not have specialist skills in understanding cosmology, nor does the average astrophysicist (do you realise how diverse astrophysics is?). FYI his own page says he is an astronomer [17], I glanced at some of his papers from [18], some examples [19][20]. they are astronomy. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your concepts of notability and reliability, you've not cited any guidelines, not even an essay. There is no requirement in WP:GNG to use IRWolfie's definition of "mainstream sources". You declared above that articles published by Times of India (which has the largest newsprint circulation in the English world) and nbcnews.com were "not really reliable". Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The initial point remains that you added material into the JSE article without providing a citation, and above you cited yourself without identifying yourself as partially the source of the material. Unscintillating (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why? Should I tell you what parts of every article I wrote if I link it? That's patently absurd. The text about promoting fringe wasn't added by me anyway, so what's your point beyond muddying the waters of this discussion? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is that you added unsourced opinion to a Wikipedia article and represented it in this AfD discussion as fact, had the opportunity to redact or clarify, and declined. I expect that there are many points, but one is that you might want to reconsider your role at Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm generally a friend to articles on alternative science.But I regard the keep arguments here as basically ITHINKITSNOTABLE, when it is just the speculations of an individual that have gotten almost no further discussion in the literature. It shouldbe covered, but as part of the article on the principal proponent. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about ~~the work this theory was built up from, and~~ the reception to Lanza's theory? For notability, its cited by reputable sources unaffiliated with Lanza or Berman. Biocentrism is accredited to two scientists, so how would the text be equally distributed between the two? How would you compare it to another theory proposed by few scientists? The big bang theory, before the universe's expansion was measured. Sidelight 12 ^Talk 04:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously comparing it to the big bang theory, an actual scientific theory? The big bang theory had evidence to support it when it was first proposed. Lanza released his book, he got some newspaper and magazine coverage before and after, but then it all fizzled away. That indicates non-notability IRWolfie- (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its an example. It took years of research afterwards for that theory to be the frontrunner of accepted theories. The big bang theory didn't have much evidence when it started out, rather it was based off of the evidence you speak of. It was a theory based off of observations, math and other people's work, similar to this. It took years for supporting evidence to come forth. Sidelight 12 ^Talk 11:28, 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 by User:Jimfbleak. G11: unambiguous advertising or promotion. (non-admin closure) Gong show 17:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destonian[edit]

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

Website that doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia notability. Not exactly in the CSD criteria either. Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 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 speedy delete by User:Boing! said Zebedee - A7. (non-admin closure) Gong show 17:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kapooya[edit]

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

Topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria but may not meet CSD criteria either. Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a other trivial YouTube video that lots of people watched, and maybe laughed at. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No idea why this didn't die a speedy death or get prodded into oblivion. One of the most massive failures of GNG you will see at AfD... Carrite (talk) 00:04, 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) 01:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multigarchy[edit]

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

Neologism with very few Google hits. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or merge.~~Merge. I'm the creator. The source is reliable and is by a journalist, and the content in the source is not trivial. It can be added to; deleting the whole article simply prevents that. Userfying it would discourage anyone else from editing it. As a mainspace article, it welcomes additions. I marked it before the AfD nomination as a stub and as needing more sources, which are ways of encouraging adding to it. I don't know if it's a neologism (I don't have OED2 handy). It's not in JStor, so it's not in much academic use. The subject is a form of government that, by whatever name or none, is likely to have widespread occurrence in history and in modern times. Merger may be appropriate but I didn't see where it should be merged into; please suggest a destination in which weight would not be a problem. Otherwise, it would be better to link to it from other articles and let editors add to it over time. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC) (Updated my vote (per my post below) and corrected (deleted) my redundant word: 17:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as an unnoticed, unsuccessful WP:NEO. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither multigarchy nor multigarch is in the Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed.), as accessed today, so it's a neologism. As the creator, I've therefore changed my vote to "merge", even though I still would like a suggestion for a destination. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is clearly a definition and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Possibly create a soft redirect to wikt:multigarch, where the term needs verification. - tucoxn\^talk 22:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's accepted at Wiktionary, it'll likely be because the book is considered "well-known", but I doubt that and I don't know of two more sources. I didn't find much of use in the first four pages of a Google search with or without the trailing "y" and I found nothing in an EbscoHost search of various library databases; these were on a recent day.
- Since merging is an option in an AfD, I wonder if the latest votes to delete are opposition to merging into a Wikipedia article. Articles often include definitional information, although I suppose we could use an article's See Also section to link to a specific Wiktionary entry, provided it survives in Wiktionary. But I don't think the information is such that it should not appear anywhere in a Wikimedia Foundation project, so I disagree with not merging if it does not stay in Wiktionary.
- Nick Levinson (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism not in general use. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 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) 18:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleb Nation (writer)[edit]

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

Subject of article is author of three books distributed by a tiny publisher, is a YouTube personality, and is an infamous self-promoter. I question whether this person is notable enough to include on Wikipedia as a writer. There are other problems with the article- like whether he's really notable enough to merit inclusion in 1988 births category? The IMDb reference links to another fan-made/self-made page where he starred in a self-made documentary. Surcer (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I see three independent sources. This small article in Business Week is the most reliable source but it is only a small article. This interview in New Media Rockstars is much longer. Obviously much of it is a direct quote from the subject but there is a small ammount of commentry by the interviewer. This interview for Huffington Post is similar. Yaris678 (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This author was not distributed by a tiny publisher, his first two novels were published by Scholastic, the world's largest publisher of children's books. The IMDb page is weak but the referenced documentary was not self-made, it was distributed by Summit Entertainment. I am unsure about his level of self-promotion but as that claim only reflects a personal opinion, I do not consider it a basis for removal. Janakodak (talk) 8:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
weak keep Two books, but by a major publisher, Worldcat shows the first in over 600 libraries, the second in over 300, so there are probably reviews; they need to be looked for. Weak keep only because I am not happy with the article --he is not notable as a YouTube personality; he is mildly notable as an author DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 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 Animal (Kesha album). J04n(talk page) 01:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Party at a Rich Dude's House[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, no notability no chart action at all. Should be deleted, not merged —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album article; track titles are reasonable search terms. postdlf (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Animal (Kesha album); plausible search term. Gong show 16:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as totally non-notable as songs go, or per WP:CHEAP, redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 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) 01:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TeamHeads concept[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/TeamHeads concept

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

not notable, no references, poorly written Bhny (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nl wikipedia was faster off the mark in deleting the equivalent article in September 2012 for what Google translates as "Explicit advertising, (self) promotion, recruitment and propaganda". AllyD (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:COI by the article creator. No evidence found for the notability of this subject, either as "TeamHeads concept" or "Stuurgroep TeamHeads". AllyD (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously written to promote an idea invented by the authors that is not mentioned in any independent sources. Yaris678 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as obvious promo-spam. The fact that it's a "working title" strongly suggests WP is being used to "raise awareness" of this unreferenced idea. Stalwart111 00:14, 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) 01:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic exe[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Sonic exe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

A completely unorganized set of ideas that is basically original research. Unencyclopedic. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 17:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:OR. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopedic article lacking reliable sources, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found two refs from reliable sources (GamesRadar and GameInformer), but they aren't detailed enough to establish notability. Even including these two, there isn't enough information available to create an encyclopedic article without resorting to original research: doesn't pass GNG. czar · · 00:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not establish notability, original research.Jucchan (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious original research/original thought. Stalwart111 00:17, 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 no consensus. J04n(talk page) 18:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Downside Ball Game[edit]

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

Unsourced and very likely copyright violating article which gives undue weight to a totally non-notable game played at one small school. Bob Re-born (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing of the information is from an article which appeared in the School's published history. This article has been referenced and permission obtained. The game is notable, since it predates the Eton and Rugby Ball Game - which themselves have a page on Wikipedia. Moreover, it is played by over half the school and evidence to suggest it is one of the earliest documented variations of a long-standing public school sport. Maltaboy101 (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have corrected Maltaboy101's posting time to match the timestamp in the edit history. Also, I have put 'keep' in front of Maltaboy101's statement to clarify for other editors what I think Maltaboy101's position is.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is interesting information, but at the moment there's no indication that the subject has received any attention other than at Downside. The edit history shows a disagreement over whether this game should have its own page, or just a brief mention in the Downside School article. To justify a separate article, I think we need to see some indication that the game has been discussed in independent reliable sources--for example, in news articles, or in books or other scholarly works about public school games, the evolution of handball or racquet sports, or some other appropriate subject. I was unable to find any such independent coverage. As it stands right now, we have a nice piece about a distinctive activity that was pursued historically at Downside, but nothing to indicate any independent context or other indication that it is separately notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons given by Arxiloxos. This is a huge and detailed article about something of minimal interest if you have no connection with the school. So many schools have local traditions and variations on sports, they are not notable unless, as with the Eton example, there is significant discussion outside the school. Peteinterpol (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If the game has been played since 1820, it deserves an article. The additional source material is likely to exist, even if not cited. Downside is a leading Catholic public school, so that this is not about a "bog standard" school. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
very Weak keep They are a well known school; comparing articles, I see the Eton Wall Game. Eton Field Game, & [[Harrow football] have a very few outside references, but Winchester Football does not. How thorough a search has be made? The question of proportionality is important--a more modest article would be more readily accepted, but it is difficult to explain the peculiarities and compare to other games without detailed rules. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 08:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Diviners (Young Adult Novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable book lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found multiple reviews and other references to the book and have fleshed it out accordingly. There are multiple reviews out there in general, according to this EBSCO link. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable book. Appears to not fail WP:NOTBOOK. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has multiple reviews and award nominations. LadyofShalott 02:50, 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 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 SNOW keep. Overwhelming consensus that the brothers Tsarnaev meet the criteria at WP:ONEEVENT, largely favoring Epeefleche's invocation of the line If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. It should also be noted that the article is currently two clicks away from the main page, and that as such it's best that we close this sooner rather than later. If people have BLP concerns, then they can address them on the article and its talk page, and if people think that WP:BLP1E should be amended to cover articles on high-profile individuals, then they can start an RfC. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokar Tsarnaev[edit]

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

WP:PERP. They are notable only in relation to the event, which already has an article. No need for a pseudo-biography. Further, a significant portion of this article is just an unnecessary WP:FORK of the event content. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...recentism and not needed fork...aside from the event, they are clearly not notable.--MONGO 15:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that notability is questionable per WP:ONEEVENT. What is of encyclopedical interest in their biographies may be dealt with in the main article about the Boston bombings. On the other hand we have detailed articles about Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik who are also only notable each for a unique event (if you count the bombing and shooting by Breivik as one coherent act). De728631 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated by MONGO, pertinent info is in main article and there is no need for add'l articles for individuals. Patchallel (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As to WP:ONEEVENT, the guideline states:
"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."
Clearly the event is highly significant. Clearly the role of each individual here is significant. After the keeps flow in, we should SNOW this.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article needs revising but it should definitely not be deleted, there is a lot of information on these people that cannot fit in Boston Marathon bombings page and, there will be even more information as time progresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.176.42 (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "one event" rule is totally bizarre; they are notable worldwide, like Breivik and Mengele. Their biographies do not belong in the bombing article, just as the bombing and manhunt details do not belong in their biographies. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The nominator may have a point. But as more and more press coverage focuses on the subjects of this article, I presume that more and more content will proportionately be added into Wikipedia about them. And it may reach a stage where a sub-article on them will become inevitable. I'm neutral on this. Mar4d (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed with the bizarre one event rule. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were only known in one event and they have a page. Pollack man34 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Jared Lee Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho, James Eagan Holmes I could name more who are only notable for one event but have a page JayJay^{What did I do?} 15:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is a work in progress and contains information about the two that cannot into the Boston Marathon bombings article. I presume more content will be added to this article as more details surrounding the two are released in the coming days. Abstrakt (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a notable individual and let's not bog down the Boston Marathon page with all the information on the two suspects when we can place it here. BearMan998 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (maybe even per WP:SNOW?). I agree with User:Epeefleche and his/her understanding of WP:ONEEVENT. The Tsarnaev brothers receive(d) a tremendous amount of media attention. There are other examples of criminals/terrorists only linked to one event who are covered in separate articles (just to name a few famous and not-so-well-known ones from the top of my head: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Anders Behring Breivik, Konrad Kujau, Arno Funke). If there is enough to say about the perpetrators/suspects of a crime and if they received a certain amount of perpetual coverage, I cannot see why there should not be a biographical article. The information itself is clearly notable, no question whatsoever. Of course, the biographical part can be included in the article about the crime/event itself, but if it grows too long (which seems to be the case with Boston Marathon bombings), a separate article is needed.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's repetitive and out of date, especially details on the chase which now are old compared to the main article 16:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GCW50 (talk • contribs)
Keep Clearly not BLP1E per the Epeefleche's sound analysis, we have enough sources and biographical details to support a spinout and a separate article about them. Cavarrone (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, not a violation. There are numerous reliable sources which describe their personal life and biography as well. TB randley 16:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mountains of precedent consensus indicate keep. It looks like this discussion is clearly heading that way, but the reasons should be clearly explained so that people arguing for deletion can understand why that is not appropriate. Discussions over "Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold" reached the same conclusion, and like that case, there is enough biographical information about these two, and enough information about the event itself, to warrant two separate articles. The line of division of the two topics is a natural one, and their division will certainly aid users in navigating to the particular information they are seeking. WP:CFORK doesn't apply, because the two articles treat separate but related topics, not the same topic from different perspectives. WP:PERP provides guidelines for separation which are met here. Also, we can reasonably assume that this information will continue to have encyclopedic merit for years to come, and so, while recentism may be a valid argument against the inclusion of certain details, it's certainly not a good argument against the existence of the article itself. Of course BLP argues for caution as well, but it does not argue for deletion. This is not a case of Wikipedia bringing unwelcome notoriety to otherwise-unpublicized private details. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 16:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs revising but it should definitely not be deleted, there is a lot of information on these people that cannot fit in Boston Marathon bombings page and, there will be even more information as time progresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.176.42 (talk • contribs)
Keep but stub and rebuild - right now this is not a biographical article but basically another article about the bombings and chase, which is a useless fork that just means stuff has to be fixed in two places. polarscribe (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Ample precedent: Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan_Sirhan, Leopold and Loeb, etc. This is going to be encyclopedic forever, and separate from the bombing event. WP:SNOW definitely applies--I'm honestly not sure why it's in play. Hmcnally (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? Moreover, the articles you mentioned have much more information about their subjects than the one being discussed. On top of that, does not apply in discussions where there is genuine contention within the community. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:Otherstuffexists points out: "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." Certainly here they are valid. Even Wikipedia:ONEEVENT itself makes such comparisons.

As to SNOW, it fits perfectly: "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." Have you read what I quoted from ONEEVENT above? Do you dispute that the event is significant? Do you dispute that the individuals' roles within it are large ones? If not, then it doesn't apply.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:ONEEVENT "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." The suspects are known Worldwide it does not get any bigger than that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interest on an international level, and if kept in the bombing article it would make the bombing article too long. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do hope that the closing admin will carefully read the entire discussion and review all of the policy/guidelines involved. Take your time and seek the advice of others if needed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boston Marathon bombing. ONEEVENT/BLP applies here. There is not enough information separation from their role in the attack to make them notable separately from it. In time, we may learn more but with one dead, that will change things and when that happens, a separate article can be spun out. They're searchable names so there's no need to delete. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epeeflechee's comments, and because WP:ONEEVENT is satisfied by the worldwide and longterm effects of the bombings and subsequent crimes they are alleged to have committed, the unprecedented lockdown of the Boston area and the widely covered massive dragnet of pursuit, and also because sources exist to flesh out the bio info. Today's papers have more bio info on their background. Comprehensive coverage of the bios would be a disproportionate part of the article on the bombings, which should wind up with only a brief summary. Many killers known only for the killings have had their articles kept in past AFDs, showing a consensus that the perpetrator of a notable crime does not need to be notable independent of the crime. Edison (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While Mongo and the nominator have a valid point that this is a "not needed fork" at this juncture, there is no doubt that there would be an article on these individuals at some point and that the pair easily pass the GNG criteria now. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:ONEEVENT and Epeecflechee's comments.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 17:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split: Socio-politically relevant. --86.164.2.130 (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article has been moved twice, and is now at Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. User:Eugen Simion 14 moved it to Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and I moved it further to fix the spelling. Sideways713 (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete using Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and Adam Lanza plus WP:BLP1E as a compass, I am able to fight the urge to create the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have to read further than the title of the policy. To what the text of the policy actually says. Doing so, how does wp:BLP1E require deletion of the article? The policy states (emphasis added): "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when ... It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented." Do you view the event as insignificant? Or do you view the individuals' role as less than substantial? Because otherwise, BLP1E does not apply.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per common sense. Scholars will be studying Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokar Tsarnaev for decades to come. So it easily easily meets WP:GNG. It doesn't matter whether or not it meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) since WP:GNG supersedes Wikipedia:Notability (people). But in actuality, it also meets criteria #2 of WP:PERP. So, not matter how you slice or dice it, the result is the same: keep. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The situation with Adam Lanza was quite different - he died on the day of the attack. So no evidence gathering for the trial, no law enforcement work to establish motive, no trial, no sentencing, no subsequent interest in where he/she is (in prison), no legal appeals, etc. In short, the media is going to focus on the Tsarnaevs for months, if not years, and that information - while needed in Wikipedia - would overwhelm the Boston Marathon bombings article, which should be more about the bombings and victims and search for the perpetrators than about the perpetrators themselves. Plus, Lanza was a loner, whereas that matter isn't exactly settled with the Tsarnaevs. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because WP:ONEEVENT threshold is satisfied, given that the bombing and its aftermath occurred and unfolded during a high profile and international event and drew much world-wide attention, and because there is ample precedent for having a separate article on the perpetrators (alleged in this case as of the now) of such crimes/acts, for example: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden, Martin Bryant and Martin Peyerl. Additionally, I would like to suggest that those involved with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force raise the priority level for maintaining and updating this and similar articles.Drdpw (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PERP is also met for #2 - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Fluppy (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please include a reason. AfD is not a vote. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Boston Marathon bombings and redirect - per WP:PERP, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The Boston Marathon bombings article could definitely incorporate the information contained in Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Moreover, WP:PERP also states that "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment also, WP:PSEUDO states that "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context." — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply WP:PSEUDO is an essay not a guideline or policy while WP:ONEEVENT is when it comes to notable people outside of one event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep It may need cleanup but a separate biographic page is warranted, especially as more details emerge about the subjects. Sadly they are notable and there will be a strong interest in learning about their live paths that lead them to want to commit a terrorist attack, as well as the fait of the one who is still alive. (talk) user:Al83tito 18:02, 20 April 2013

Keep Per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:SNOW. They are clearly within the guidelines to merit a stand-alone article.— -dainomite 18:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - read Wikipedia:SNOW#What the snowball clause is not. SNOW doesn't apply to cases of genuine contention in the community. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is much scholarly and socio-political interest in the psychology and motivation behind solo terrorism (and things similar to such terrorism). Many studies will go case by case, name by name. As these men are sure to become study objects referred to in much scholarly literature and other reliable sources for years to come, I consider them notable for Wikipedia. I don't see this as recentism at all. Also, I find that pricacy concerns that are a good reason for being restrictive with "one event" artiicles in many other cases, don't really apply to terrorism and crimes very similar to terrorism. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging this back into the bombing article isn't a good idea, I think; that's already large, and will be getting a bit larger, most likely. Adding the two together will create a too-bloated article. Keep 'em separate, and readable. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PERP. They are notable only in relation to the event, which already has an article. No need for a pseudo-biography. Further, a significant portion of this article is just an unnecessary WP:FORK of the event content. Meclee (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is a consensus process, not a vote, so you need to provide your own reasoning, not just copy and paste what User:Gaijin42 said above. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 19:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. They do not seem to be notable as a package or outside their crime --Guerillero | My Talk 18:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above that confirm their notability. I would actually support splitting this article into two separate articles: one for each of them, as right now it just seems like two individual articles shoved together. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. this is definitely a Content fork of which the notable information is already in the main article.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split - WP:BLP1E definitely does not apply for at least Dzhokar and keeping the information on Tamerlan in the article would seem to be a COATTRACK.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets GNG and 1EVENT does not apply. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am surprised that there are this many votes to keep. While the event being significant may allow it to pass ONEEVENT and BLP1E, it still fails WP:PSEUDO, and is borderline for WP:PERP. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Again WP:PSEUDO is not a policy nor a guideline, all the others you mentioned are when it comes to notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is unnecessary since this should certainly be a redirect at the least and an smerge is appropriate even if BLP1E is held to apply. That said I think that keeping as a separate article is the best course of action. Lots of personal details of these individuals have been released / discussed in the media. presenting that material fully and fairly could easily unbalance the article on the bombings and is exactly what a biography article is well suited for. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP There is no way WP:PSEUDO applies at all to support deletion. Massive law enforcement and media investigation is turning up every detail of these suspects lives-no shortage of info. If we don't provide an article to capture significant biographical info it will all be added to the Bombing article and a big edit war will ensue.Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is highly notable and obviously these individuals were critically important. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than one WP guidelines to keep it. And there are many articles about such individuals. Egeymi (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boston Marathon bombings. Neither of them will ever be notable for anything except for the bombing, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev especially will not. There is no point in covering them in any other context. The fact that other articles get this principle wrong is not grounds to repeat the mistake. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nice to know you can predict the future. So, who do like in the Derby? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe I can be certain that it will be won by a horse. I believe I can be certain that neither subject of the article under discussion has any other notability. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unless you can predict which horse, you got nothin'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up per ONEEVENT above. DodgerOfZion (talk)
Keep and split. Sounds like there are folks at the Boston Marathon bombings article who don't want crap about some kid's hobbies and social networking cluttering up their article, and it's hard to blame them! But it's relevant biography here. Wnt (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep This is a major terrorist attack and the perpetrators already are the subject of immense interest. Whether to split out the articles or not is a matter to be handled at the talk page. Ray^Talk 20:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, add a ((mainarticle)) tag to Boston Marathon bombings and merge the extraneous information out of that article into this one. My76Strat (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, just to inform you that it exists on the French Wikipedia : fr:Frères Tsarnaïev. I am currently tring to merge the entries on wikidata. I have no opinion on conservation or not on eithe Wikipedia. --MathsPoetry (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wait, and clean up. The information in this article depicts a current event, and new information is learned daily. For now, there is no way to say with 100% accuracy that these men are only notable for the Boston Marathon bombings (the media states that there are possibilities that they may be connected to larger terrorist regimes and/or activities, although as I said before, there are no 100 percents or guarantees at the moment), and as long as the article is here, it needs a lot of cleaning up. — Thatemooverthere (Talk) 20:20, 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 delete. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South East Scotland[edit]

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

OR: no indication that the actual term is in any currency, for this specification of the area or any other. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Today's addition to the article of a list of organisations which have geographical subdivisions designated as being for "South East Scotland" illustrates that the term only ever has any meaning within the context of each individual organisation itself. Most, per the article intro, include the Scottish Borders, East Lothian, Midlothian and Edinburgh but most also include any of Fife, West Lothian, Perthshire, Dundee, Clackmannan, Stirlingshire and/or Dumfries and Galloway. There is nothing approaching a generally common meaning. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:OR. A rather poor collection of miscellaneous information for an area for which there is no robust (generally accepted definition. It might be redueced to a dabpage for organisations with with "South East Scotland" branches, but that would require there tobe articles on the brnaches, not merely on the organisations generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fair enough. I originally started the article, because I thought the expression South East Scotland might be useful from a historical perspective as a neutral term to describe an area which changed from being an area dominated by a Britonnic people, language and culture to one controlled by Anglo Saxons with an Anglic culture (although a significant number of Britonnic place-names were retained up to the present day e.g. Penicuik), only for it to be absorbed into the Kingdom of Scotland, albeit retaining its distinctive Anglic nature at a time when most of Scotland was dominated by Gaelic culture. I was always fully aware that it is not commonly used, but seeing as I thought the area, which transcends local government boundaries, both then and now, was never-the-less distinct from a historical perspective I persisted. Apparently I was wrong. As a local, I probably am a little biased. I suppose Lothian and Borders will have to suffice as a description for the area (although seeing as Lothian and Borders Police no longer exists maybe nobody will talk about that in the future either). Sorry for all the bother I gave everyone with this. Robbiesergent (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest of respect to you for being open to these arguments regarding an article to which you've clearly devoted significant effort. Very refreshing. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:51, 28 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Engine[edit]

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

No sources / references, non notable. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article itself needs some help but I found at least three articles to establish notability. [21], [22], [23]--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 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, MBisanz ^talk 22:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is official partner of major charities and described on their sites. eg. Oxfam [24], MSF [25], CARE [26]. Currently 14 news articles referenced on its press page. [27]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.89.101 (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC) There's a BBC article about Charity Engine, that can easily be found — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.44.201 (talk) 12:49, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Incubate This article has only the home web page for a citation, which means that readers cannot WP:Verify the article's content. Unscintillating (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to incubate, since a notable topic without sources can be improved, and incubation gets this unreliable article out of mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — there are primary and secondary sources (like BusinessInsider, ReadWrite, BBC, TheNextWeb ecc); I don't see a valid reason for asking a AfD and the aforementioned issues could be improved without the need of a AfD — Toffanin (talk) 09:50, 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 Saint Lu. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 (Saint Lu album)[edit]

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

Non notable album Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the album was only issued a couple of weeks ago what other sources than radio interviews and reviews can anyone expect? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, one would not expect much else. One would also not expect a wikipedia article, as it fails WP:GNG and WP:ALBUM due to the lack of other coverage. Mere existence of the album is not sufficient for an article. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 20 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, MBisanz ^talk 22:04, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saint Lu, should it receive more coverage it can easily be recreated. J04n(talk page) 22:40, 28 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. Had the sources been analyzed and found appropriate would have likely closed as keep but reading this discussion neither side made convincing arguments. J04n(talk page) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for over 4 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 12:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep it does get a number of hits in Portuguese in gnews. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 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, MBisanz ^talk 22:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As LibStar says, substantial Portuguese-language coverage at GNews. Also, many GBooks and GScholar references (using "FAPESB" as the search term). It appears to have funded quite a lot of activity; as a state agency it has a high likelihood of notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:31, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:34, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skoosh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not demonstrate notability and I have not been able to find anything to establish notability. There are 7 sources on the article. 1. Is significant coverage but it is just about a complaint filed by Skoosh. 2. The article is about an investigation initiated by a complaint by Skoosh. 3. The article doesn't mention Skoosh, just discusses the previous investigation. 4. The article mentions Skoosh once, it is just that a complaint was made. 5. Once again, one mention but only that Skoosh made a complaint. 6. A class action complaint, Skoosh is not a defendant, didn't read the whole thing, but probably related to the complaint. 7. What I can see without registering is again about the complaint made by Skoosh but isn't about the company. I do not see anything that says the company is notable. GB fan 12:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks NN to me. Looks like a minor player trying to muscle in on the larger ones by making claim against larger operators. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete -- The company are notable if you follow the hotel industry in any way. They are small and don't appear to make any pretensions otherwise but the complaint they made will, if upheld, be a landmark case. The Office of Fair Trading would not be making an investigation into the claims made by the company if they weren't serious - they're a public body. As the only company to make a complaint and publicly discuss the issue, Skoosh seem certainly worthy of notability. Feel free to suggest re-wording of page instead if it can be done better. Waldinho (talk) 08:21, 10 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, MBisanz ^talk 22:00, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB --Ushau97 (talk) 16:49, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Badidas University Newcastle[edit]

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

This article is a non-notable spoof of Newcastle University of which the only purpose is to attack that educational institution. The three references are a spoof website, a news story about a deal between Adidas and the university and a story not related to Newcastle University. Web searches for the name of the article only find social media links created by the same people who created the main attack website. TubularWorld (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator did not inform the creator of the article of this deletion discussion. I have now done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, not because the purpose of the site is to attack Newcastle University, which is irrelevant, but because there is no evidence anywhere of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear notable enough --Ushau97 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable campaign. Lacks coverage by reliable sources. My search for reliable sources got only an activist website. Two of the article's three references are not about the subject. The remaining reference is the campaign's own website. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rest in Peace: The Final Concert[edit]

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

wasn't able to establish notability outside of an AllMusic article. Lachlan Foley 03:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, why are we picking on Bauhaus? Listmeister (talk) 17:46, 9 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, MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:29, 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 keep. L Faraone 00:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Arbitration and Mediation[edit]

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

Google news gives one insignificant hit. Google web search lists the official site and generic listings. The article as it stands does not have a single source that is not its official site. Notability has not been established. And while the article is not as bad of a blatant advertisement as often seen it does read like a directory listing.

Also, the editor who created the article has been indeffed for spamming and at least one other version of this article was deleted before getting this one to stick. SQGibbon (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article: WP:COMPANY NAM (National Arbitration and Mediation), Inc. is a notable corporation. Dquinnadr (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:COMPANY says what you think it does. Anyway, we still need at least two independent reliable sources who cover the subject in significant detail in order to establish notability. There still isn't even one. SQGibbon (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added reliable sources that establish notability. Dquinnadr (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately those appear to be press releases (at least the two I could check) which is not considered a reliable source as per WP:SPS (click on the footnote link for the specific language against using press releases). SQGibbon (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SQGibbon: What defines an independent reliable source? I am the Asst Dir of IT for NAM (Ref Page) and DQuinnadr is a Project Assistant for NAM (Ref Page). DQuinnadr has been authorized by the Owner of the Company NAM (Ref Page) to edit this Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.82.170 (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP National Arbitration & Mediation, Inc. is often referred to as "NAM" - perhaps this is a cause for confusion. When this editor began to update this wikipedia page, the title of the article read "National Arbitration and Mediation," however, a new page would need to be created to say "National Arbitration & Mediation (NAM)" to express that form of the entity's name. NAM is the first party source of information - it is verifiable by the resources and references made throughout the article - I'm not sure what kind of third-party recognition would be necessary. The "press releases" cited throughout the article should serve as a viable source of proof that the entity exists. This editor is currently working on finding more third-party sources to satisfy Wikipedia's policies on notability. Dquinnadr (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Secretary of State - NY Corporations Dquinnadr (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of whether this company exists, it clearly does, it's more if it meets Wikipedia standards for notability. What we're looking for is significant coverage (not just a mention) in what is generally considered a reliable source. This could be a newspaper or magazine or any other notable, independent, and reliable sources. Anything that is self-published (like a website or a press release) does not go toward establishing notability. It also does not matter if user Dquinnadr has been authorized to edit the article as this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit including someone like me who has never heard of this company. But you might also want to read up on the Wikipedia guideline concerning conflicts of interest which you are admitting to here. Finally, changing the name is easy to do once notability has been established. SQGibbon (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that the press releases do not go toward establishing notability, however, the two other sources that are cited are a law journal and a newpaper article, both discuss National Arbitration and Mediation and its services and history. I do not understand why those citations would not be good enough -- they are reliable sources and easy to find. As far as conflict of interest goes, I am looking to comply with Wikipedia's policies and in no way am attempting to have this page serve as advertisement for the company, merely a source of information available. I will delete or modify any text on this page that even remotely appears to serve as advertisement, because I do fully understand the purpose of Wikipedia and any mistakes I have made in that regard were purely overlooked. I will continue to search for viable resources if this page does indeed need more than what is already there to establish notability. Dquinnadr (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I do not see the difference in what NAM - National Arbitration and Mediation is utilizing Wikipdeia for in relation to other companies listed in Wikipedia in the same marketplace. This article appears to be a good reference without crossing the line into advertisement. Also, I verified that there are two independent sources, a Law Journal and a Newspaper Article that both discuss National Arbitration and Mediation and its history, both are considered third party sources. I believe the links were not established because of the nature of the literature (they are not online references). In addition, NAM - National Arbitration and Mediation, is listed in numerous online articles, but unfortunately, all are "pay per view" references that I was unable to view without having an account. Mmoreomwm (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I agree with Mmoreomwm above. I checked these sources out, they were easily accessible and they establish National Arbitration and Mediation's notability as a company. I don't think that this article violates any of Wikipedia's policy.Gemini2626 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The two editors above who !voted to "keep" just above me are both accounts that were created on the 12th (the same day they !voted) and have not editing anything except this page. I'm trying to AGF but it does look suspiciously canvass-like/puppety. As a side note, if the sources that are not accessible online do indeed establish notability then the minimum requirements are met, but I am unable to check the sources. If there is cavassing/puppetry going on then we might need someone else to verify those sources. SQGibbon (talk) 20:02, 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, MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure why anyone would have difficulty finding the sources cited. They were found and can be found still using Google News and or JSTOR. Many of the other articles and journals that NAM appears in are pay-per-view and therefore cannot be accessed, but they exist nonetheless. Literature about National Arbitration and Mediation seems to be located in the Deep Web and is near impossible to gain access to. Is there another means of accessing such literature? I am looking to satisfy all of Wikipedia's standards and am having a difficult time doing so -- again, I understand that the company's own website does not serve as a viable source, however, all of the information presented in this Wikipedia article comes from the company's website as well as the multiple valid sources cited throughout. National Arbitration and Mediation appears in a multitude of articles and law journals, which can be observed by doing a simple Google News search -- the information presented throughout the article can be validated by the articles found through this search, which are each cited properly. Dquinnadr (talk) 13:34, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This organization is a highly significant and well-known national dispute-resolution provider. The article could use some rewriting, but there should be no serious question as to the NAM's notability. Newyorkbrad (talk)
Keep There may not be independent sources for them on a regular Google search, but I had no problem finding independent sources via a Google Scholar search. (scholar.google.com) (Just to be clear, since there's discussion above about interested parties participating in this thread, I have no association with them whatsoever.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HillbillyGoat (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could either of you provide an actual link/citation that meets WP:GNG (significant coverage by a reliable independent source)? Looking the subject up on Google Scholar provided some hits but not being able to read most of it (paywalled) it was not clear if these were just mentions or actual in-depth coverage of the subject. The links I did click on were definitely not about NAM but apparently mention them in the article. Yes they exist, yes they get mentioned, but as of yet it is not clear that they are notable. SQGibbon (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, or delete and redirect Bloomberg's investing.businessweek.com is usually a good indicator of notability. In this case, they list the company but there is no associated write-up. The article itself is spammy and lacks inline citations. The sections of the article starting with "Roster of Neutrals" to the end of the article can be deleted immediately as BLP violations and spam. The section Alternative Dispute Resolution is not much better. I don't think we are interested in claims by the company that their associates are "skilled". Looking at the brief mentions in the Google Books snippets shows that this topic is mentioned with peer companies, and suggests that a proper place for this topic in the encyclopedia is in a List of Alternative Dispute Resolution companies. I looked at the American Arbitration Association article and it is completely unsourced. This book snippet adds two more names for the list, "Resolute Systems and U.S. Arbitration & Mediation. Unscintillating (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's possible they may be notable, but this article is essentially pure advertising. a long list of some of their notable staff, a list of what sort of cases they engage in--which comprises essentially everything that might possibly be relevant, names of all the trade organizations they belong to, definitions of basic terms for the unfamiliar, which may be needed on a web site but in a wiki, is handled by hyperlinks. Unscintillating, why do you consider a mere listing on businnessweek.com a reliable indication of notability--though of course the data it provides is reliable and the data may indicate notability through size or NYSE membership or other factors, or through the references given to news accounts. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I said about the Bloomberg listing is that "there is no associated write-up." So Bloomberg does not encourage me that this topic is wp:notable. On the other hand, Bloomberg considers the topic to be worthy of a mention, which is more than nothing. Here is a Forbes article from 1999 that verifies that this company was once traded on NASDAQ. Unscintillating (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is anyone able to explain why the wikipedia articles of like companies such as JAMS (Alternative Dispute Resolution) are not being challenged, as the aforementioned article contains content and format correlative to NAM's? Are any of the above contributors able to offer some absolute and constructive advice for editing NAM's wikipedia article to conform with wikipedia's policies and purpose? This article has been modified over and over in an attempt to comply with all of wikipedia's guidelines -- it seems that the highly contradictory views and opinions stated above are hindering any editor's capability to write/edit an acceptable article. Dquinnadr (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at JAMS (alternative dispute resolution), the article has no secondary references. I have previously mentioned that American Arbitration Association is likewise unsourced. It would be possible (although unusual) to add each of these two additional articles to this AfD, but it would require other editors to agree to do so. If this is possible, I'd support incubating all three. Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 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 no consensus. L Faraone 00:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winner (card game)[edit]

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

no reliable sources to establish notability. Identical to Big 2 Curb Chain (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game doesn't seem to be identical to Big 2 anymore than Contract Bridge is identical to Whist. A better solution might be to template the article with an invitation to better source it. Rylon (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While waiting four sources is usually a reasonable request, this article is seven years old. I'd imagine that if there were reliable sources to be found, seven years would have been long enough. I could be wrong, but I think there is good reason to delete this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:17, 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, MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's possible, even likely, that many of the editors haven't been looking for sources. That's what you get when you have a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. A lot of editors aren't going to look for sources. By putting a template on on it, the article is more likely to attract the kind of editor who will add citations. Rylon (talk) 19:28, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep If the sources don't support notability, and there is an obvious merge target, there is no apparent need for an AfD discussion. It is not the role of AfD volunteers to find reasons for an AfD discussion. Further, the nominator removed information from the article just before making the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oppose merge We can't simply say that every unreferenced article requires an unlimited amount of time for editors to find sources. There are some types of articles where the standards may be different (for example a politician listed as holding a prominent role or a science term that seems to indicate likely importance) but a card game with absolutely no references beyond its own google page which has been around for 7 years is not one of those. I also would oppose any merge (to either list of card games or a related game) without even one verifiable, reliable and independent source. The Chinese entry does not seem to have any, but a Chinese language source would of course be acceptable. I'm all for giving some leeway in finding foreign sources, but 7 years when there isn't even a sliver of an indication of notability, (and in fact there's really just promotion to a download website) is a different situation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One can find better sources with these searches on the name in Pinyin:

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

In particular, there is this book, unfortunately only available in snippet view: A History of Card Games. In the snippets I can see references to two more sources, one in English by McLeod and another in French. There is also this one: Teach Yourself Card Games. Thus the card game meets the GNG regardless of whether the article has sources right now or not.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is John McLeod or Pagat.com reliable sources.Curb Chain (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but the book that cites McLeod is published by OUP, which makes it reliable. There is also the other book, published by McGraw Hill. Two meets the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But is the coverage substantial? The GNG requires more than passing mention?--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:44, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lakota Currency[edit]

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

The Republic of Lakotah website states that "The Republic of Lakotah is in NO WAY associated with this new “freelakotabank.” Caveat Emptor![28] The website of this unregistered bank[29] doesn't actually say it has an official relationship, only that " Sovereign Members of the Lakota Nation commissioned our currency in partnership with the American Open Currency Standard" (and I'm guessing that 'sovereign members' of this unrecognised nation are like sovereign citizens with no official standing to act on behalf of the group). There doesn't seem to be an official currency yet issued by the Republic of Lakotah. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for forgetting about the main reason for deletion - I got too interested in figuring out what this was. It doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG (the article seems to be more about a bank than anything else). Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep The site of the Republic of Lakotah does state it has nothing to do with the bank. However, this page has not been well maintained since the death of the former leader. It has been kept up, but the bank of Lakota and the Lakota mint websites have been regularly updated since. In particular the Lakota Mint website was put up only after the death of Russell Means, the former leader. Neutralization would be a better option in this case rather than deletion, I do say this with some bias as the creator of the page. HalifaxnBlack (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment fixing the formatting which screwed-up the afd log for todayRoodog2k (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I forgot when writing the AfD to add the main policy reason, which is lack of notability. It also appears that this is basically a money-making venture. I haven't yet figured out the connection between Lakota Mint[30] and Lakota Silver [31]. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability does not appear to have been confirmed, since the references are mostly self-published. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've held back on this one to see if the dedicated numismatists wanted to jump in. Crickets. This appears to be a bullion piece using a pseudo-monetary tie-in as a marketing ploy. This "hard money"/new-insurgent-government angle has the libertarian fringe in a tizzy and there are numerous blog posts on the internets resulting from that. I haven't seen anything which goes to GNG. If somebody has some substantial coverage Coin World, Numismatic News, etc., please do speak up. As for now, I just ain't seeing it... Carrite (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I very strongly agree with those who voiced concern that the "bank" is actually owned and operated by extremist libertarians not associated with the tribe or the tribal secession movement, especially given all the Ayn Rand quotes, and the verbiage peculiar to the sovereign citizen movement. I see nothing to suggest that the currency has been adopted by either the Lakota tribe or the Republic of Lakotah, and there are significant errors in the entry which will undoubtedly mislead many. For example, the entry fails to note that the Republic of Lakotah and the Lakota People - i.e., the tribe as a whole - are not at all the same, since most Lakota have expressed that they are not interested in joining the secessionist movement; instead, the entry seems to use the terms interchangeably, with no effort to differentiate despite easily located articles on the secession topic. The "currency" is definitely not notable enough for inclusion, since they just started selling them this month and it is completely unrecognized (and probably illegal, which explains the lack of physical address for a "bank" and a "mint"). However, there's a much more significant concern than merely whether it qualifies as notable, in that there's a grave danger that the very existence of a Wikipedia entry on this "currency" will be used to lend credibility which otherwise does not exist, and thus mislead or even scam the unsuspecting. I would therefore very strongly suggest not only immediate deletion, but also a block on re-creation.HillbillyGoat (talk) 00:27, 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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colt Group[edit]

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

Doubting notability. The article apparently is a creation of a person closely related to the subject, based on the contribution he/she did to Wikipedia so far. I tried to look up independent sources on this company because an employee also wrote the Hungarian article; but without success. The book they refer to [32] is most probably financed by the group, and is not independent. The articles referred to cannot be found in library searches. The rest of the references are company websites. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 07:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article. I am not an employee of the subject, though it is correct, I do have links to it. However, I am a great supporter of Wikipedia and respect for its ethos, and would never wish to go against its principles. In writing the article I went to great lengths to remain factual in telling the company's story which I think is interesting. I apologize for not noticing that the links to external articles were not valid any more. I updated the link to the Canary Wharf history page, which has been moved since I wrote the article. Unfortunately, the article on the H&V News awards website appears to have been deleted by the publication, as they are now only focused on the 2013 awards and don't keep historical pages on past awards. I have deleted the link. I believe that the company subject of the article is of interest and if there is anything I can do to address your concerns please let me know, as I would like to do what is necessary for the article to remain, with any changes that you may think are required. sonc08 —Preceding undated comment added 11:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few updates to the article, adding external links to independent sources, which I hope will address some of the concerns raised. Sonc08 (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It seems to be difficult for companies to establish WP notability, unless they are "in your face" dealing with the public, as retailers and makers of consumer goods are. As the article stands, I find it difficult to judge whether it is notable or not. There is no inducation of turnover or profit. It appears to be a provate company, but to have worked on projects in a wide range of countries, in its specialist field. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:29, 8 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, MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:24, 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 delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Napa[edit]

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

fails WP:RLN as he has not yet played a first grade or international game. Mattlore (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC) The same rationale applies to the following;[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RLN is loose enough without including literally hundreds of players signed to teams but yet to have a debut. I can't find evidence of any meeting WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Harlan Alaalatoa qualifies, played a first grade match. all the others can be recreated when they most likely play first grade within the next month. GuzzyG (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or they'll never make it and end up like Ryan Carr. Mattlore (talk) 23:28, 5 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, MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete all none have played top level games. LibStar (talk) 10:37, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jiří Růžek[edit]

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

This article appears to be nothing more than a resume about a successful, but not noteworthy photographer. It was substantially written by a single individual who may or may not be the subject of the article. FigureArtist (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 March 2013‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. full of unreliable sources. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of sources—mostly SPS, blogs, gallery listings—none that prove notability. Full of original self-promotional research impossible to source online. Also very troubling that a SPA has copied the page into over a dozen other Wikipedias. czar · · 15:42, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AG Tower[edit]

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

This piece of prime real estate in Dubai doesn't even get on the List of tallest buildings in Dubai. The article has been unsourced from the outset and I can't see any coverage online apart from the usual property websites. Sionk (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm inclined to keep anything listed in a template-box; it provides an easy way for readers to compare buildings if they don't want to find off-wiki sources. After all, WP isn't paper. This isn't a promotional page. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 13:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the tail wagging the dog! If it's not notable it shouldn't be in the template box. Sionk (talk) 14:20, 9 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, JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:10, 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 5 (Alizée album)#Singles. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Je veux bien[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this meets the notability rules. All of the sources in the article are dependent on the subject of the article. Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is only hours old, so it's not a surprise if it doesn't have yet much content nor sources. It's also part of Alizée's complete discography, which alone makes it relevant. I don't see any reason why it should be removed. RMJJRM (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 5 (Alizée album)#Singles. The song has not even been released yet. -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The single has been already sent to radio station and the promotional CDs delivered. True that exact date for public release is still unclear but it will be released within next one month for sure. Even if it takes longer, it doesn't change the fact that the article serves greater purpose than just mentioning that it's her single. It's clearly important song for her career. If Sony wasn't such a pain in ass to work with, I'd ask the exact date but as it will most likely take longer to get the date from than the actual release, there's no point. IF the single doesn't get released within the next month or two, THEN we can consider again if this article is relevant or not. RMJJRM (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the question is one of notability. What part of WP:GNG or WP:NSONG is satisfied to establish that this song should have a standa lone article? If this song is "clearly important song for her career", then that should be demonstrated with significant coverage in indpendent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:50, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:08, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyahu Comay[edit]

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

All primary sources. Could not locate secondary sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS search for "E Comay" gives an h-index of 12. Not enough to pass WP:Prof#1 in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xxan. Ray^Talk 16:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please see these related articles:
Proton spin crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by the same SPA to support Comay's theories; POV-split of nucleon spin structure)

Vector meson dominance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (heavily edited by the same with the same purpose)

—though neither of these are candidates for deletion; the former is worthy of merging, the latter needs trimming. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no significant problem with either of these articles, both on important topics, except that references to the Comay papers, published in fringe journals, should be removed as being of insufficient weight. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The problem is that all of the many issues Comay harps on—listed in his article, and in greater detail on his site and his son's blog—are being used to contradict two major pillars of modern physics, QCD and electroweak theory, of which the Comays do not approve. Thus, anything written by any of these editors is highly suspect. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. The Proton spin crisis is still a hot topic and Vector meson dominance, although not current, is of historical interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed: I didn't say they aren't valid (how would I know, after all? I'm not a scientist, but I did search and found both topics discussed by reputable sources) but I think there is a definite slant in both articles to undermine QCD (which is the Comays' goal: again, see their respective sites). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to take this would probably be the WikiProject for physics. The people who know the subject matter will be watching there. Ray^Talk 17:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually brought it up at the fringe theory noticeboard and cross-posted to WikiProject Physics before this was brought to AfD—so our local physics experts should be aware of this discussion. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 17:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the claims of being a national champion at distance running can be substantiated, he might be notable in that respect, despite his apparent failure to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the guidelines in that area overly well, I'll add the deletion category. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found 29 hits for Comay in Hebrew (אליהו קומאי) at the Historical Jewish Press database; all seem to refer to him, and almost all relate to his athletic accomplishments, though none (apparently) cover him in-depth. His prime claim to fame seems to be his being the winner of Israel's first running championship (is this the correct terminology?), in 1957. Similar results are found on the web, with one in-depth article at an Israeli running website: [33]. I'm not sure how far this counts toward notability as an athlete. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 18:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NTRACK is for professional athletes, not amateurs winning a race. Was he a professional athlete? Has Israel "been ranked in the top 40 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year"? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He states in his interview quite clearly that he is not—and has never been—a professional athlete, unless my unfamiliarity with Modern Hebrew has mislead me: "למרות היותי הישראלי הראשון שזכה אי פעם בתואר אליפות המכבייה בריצה, לא פתחתי קריירה של רץ "מקצועי" למרחקים ארוכים."‎ הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion I think he doesn't meet NTRACK. (Note that the "top 40" refers to athletes, not countries.) I wouldn't be amazed if he met GNG, though; some more interviews like that might push him over the edge, and if he's still written about forty years later I'd imagine he was written about at the time as well. (Note further that NTRACK was written to cover non-professional athletes; whether it's interpreted that way here is another issue, but I've never seen anyone otherwise meeting NTRACK being thrown out for not being a professional. 1957 was right in the middle of the amateur era of athletics and pretty much no one was officially professional then, so it's pretty certain that Comay wasn't.) Sideways713 (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no convincing notability as an academic; apparently not notable as an athlete (though I could be convinced otherwise). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 13:23, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel H Seymour[edit]

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

There's a huge amount of information about this singer, but it's all unsourced and I'm really struggling to find anything that isn't primary sources or user-generated. This person may well pass WP:MUSIC but I can't see it. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I was tagging it, I had a gut feeling someone would follow up with an AfD... That being said, what I have found for this musician is his own official website (primary), ISBN 978-1-157-49693-9 "may" have useful information on him if someone has access. I'll try to see if I can find a copy next week. Those are the only two sources for him in particular. There may be other references to him by researching his works, but be careful with that because most of it may fall under WP:NOTINHERITED's "parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent". Technical 13 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That ISBN is for a book that "primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online", according to Google Books. Peter James (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok, so I dug into some international press sources and cannot find anything that would help this individual meet either BLP or NMUSIC. The "article" reads like self-promotion, and in my mind (and based on research) that's all it is. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:53, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:06, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmet Kibar[edit]

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

Non-notable. Only one mention available online that I could muster, which is the company which he presides' website. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of a series by the creator on this family, all of whom seem to be of questionable notability at best. I could find no sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 6 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, KTC (talk) 14:10, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO --Ushau97 (talk) 16:54, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nontan[edit]

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

The article is about a character in a book which fails WP:BK. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 13:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the book series isn't notable due to a lack of reliable coverage, what more the character? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My new !vote is below. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nontan is one of the most popular and long lasting characters for very young children in Japan. Not only has the book series been adapted into anime and theatrical plays, but it has been the subject of academic articles such as these. Searching the Asahi Shinbun database, I can find dozens of article on Nontan, including a long obit on the author (who was only known for Nontan) on 2008.10.12, a long article on 2006.9.6 marking Nontan's 30th anniversary, another on the development of Nontan character goods (2000.2.16), one on the town that is using Nontan as its town symbol (1999.3.11), and so on. Many more can be found in other sources. The book series easily passes WP:BK and the character passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage found by Michitaro. However, if there is more coverage for the book series than the character, I would support a rewrite of the article to be about the series, with maybe a section dedicated to the character. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:55, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nontan has been around for 35 years. Every reason cited per Michitaro is valid. The JA Wikipedia article here [34] is what this EN stub article should look like. Subject absolutely meets criteria for WP:GNG. Article very much needs a rewrite. Jun Kayama 16:26, 28 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolau Pereira[edit]

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

Reason Gmk7 (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator has not given a rationale for deletion, but the article lacks references to reliable sources. I haven't found any RS coverage in a search. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry this is my first time. The person in question is not a noted academic. The article states that "A scientist himself, he educated and encouraged a generation of students, some of whom migrated to prominent positions abroad." However, I could not find notable scientific work attributed to the person. Also no list of notable students are mentioned. Moreover, it looks to me as if the article is written in a patronising manner. In my opinion, the person in the article does not satisfy any of the notability criteria either in academics (only one i am not sure about is point no 7, but the article does not give any reason to believe that he satisfies that) or the people section of the wikipedia policy. Further as mentioned before there are no citations from reliable sources. Gmk7 (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick followup and delete per my findings above. The article is a memorial to a non-notable person. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not a well known person. Waveword2 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Strike vote by a blocked sockpuppet. Cavarrone (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because as Gene93k put it, it is a memorial of a non notable person. Also is written in a patronising manner.Gmk7 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. listed for almost 2 weeks and insufficient sources found. LibStar (talk) 08:17, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orrendo Canto[edit]

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

I cannot find significant discussion of this proposed concept in reliable sources. The linked sources don't actually use the phrases, and a Google search brings up results using the words in a non-specialized way (i.e. "Orrendo canto": saying that someone is a bad singer), or otherwise in a way that doesn't seem to be the same as in this article. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 6 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, I believe. The phrase does of course exist in Italian, and is even in a song in Orlando Inamorato, but that does not make the article serious or notable. Love the "proposed vocal technique": yeah, nobody actually does it, riiiight. Two notes at once but not overtones, eh? Well, can you do that?... I think the fact that the phrase itself does not occur (as far as can be seen with the paywall in place) in either of the two supposed sources named in the article strongly suggests it's a hoax; all the high-falutin' musicological talk (which is basically lifted wholesale, in a jokey context) is just a bit of play, isn't it? No reliable sources; silly name; pretend references; posh-sounding language = WP:HOAX. Perhaps a little scientific Hoaxino trying to travel faster than light...

Oh, and it's an SPA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:00, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hill (professor)[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC. Additionally, BLP is significantly unsourced with excessive detail, like a CV. czar · · 05:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There seems to be a definite instance of promotion/advertising here, but looking beyond that there seems to be at least a minute support for notability with the current references section. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, but I can see this one scraping by at least the general notability guideline. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:PROF, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:MILL. Visiting professors today are non-tenure-track, all too common, and often rank below lecturers and instructors (as they have short 2- or 3-term, i.e. one-year contracts). I can't see how he passes WP:GNG without WP:SIGCOV. There's lots of online 'Optimal Resume'-type websites for that. Please, convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R to Bearian: Visiting professorships if there is no other professor title do not pass WP:PROF, but the title shouldn't be read as per se meaning someone does not have a full academic appointment somewhere. Lots of professors travel for a year or two and take a visiting professor title elsewhere, while still maintaining a "professor" title at their home institution. Here the lede says that he is "Research Professor in Education at Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, England". --Lquilter (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to his papers, he is founder of a journal & series editor for Routledge. Google Scholar (certainly not the best resource for education) on "Dave Hill education" shows a number of relevant papers with fairly high citations -- 64, 90, 67, 65, plus lots more. A fairly large number of publications with significant citation in education suggests to me that he is in fact well-known ("notable") in his field, as does the discussed significant involvement in professional meetings, societies, scholarship, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use those Google Scholar numbers as a metric for anything. In your examples, most of the actual citations appear to be self-citations. What WP:SCHOLAR criteria do you suggest he has passed? czar · · 15:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is some evidence for academic notability in the citation record, but not enough to convince me. And most of the article is not about that at all, but rather about his political activities, and as minor elected official and a perennial unelected minor party candidate he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. If kept, the article should be severely cut back to focus only on his academic work. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography, including 12 books and papers with high citation counts and two stint as an elected county counselor, not counting other political campaigns. In essence, a public figure. The article itself needs work. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Cyber Squad[edit]

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

Unreferenced and borderline spam, and I can't find any sources online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In a case this obvious, is a policy-based argument even necessary? It almost seems redundant. I mean...just look at the article! MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising and patent nonsense: the global IT business of ICS Limited is a leading Information Technology, consulting and outsourcing company with a comprehensive portfolio of services and an organization wide commitment to sustainability and innovation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried some web searches to see if I could make sense of this, and there are hits, but that which I am seeing could be self-published. After that, I found another version of the article here that has some references, not all of which can be dismissed without review. Unscintillating (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 02:06, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network Invaded[edit]

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

This article describes a television event surrounding 5 episodes of different series, but it does not explain why the event is significant. It's very little more than long plot summaries of each episode, which can be found in condensed form on their individual series' episode lists. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 05:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wanted to kill this article for a long time. Promotional gimmick involving special episodes with alien invasions remembered by nobody in 2013, episode guides describe each episode better. Nate • (chatter) 23:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:N, and merge anything useful (usefulness to be determined at editor discretion) into relevant articles. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 12:54, 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 by G7. Non-admin closure, housekeeping. czar · · 15:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Balta[edit]

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

This article has had a BLP-prod several times and each time this has been removed by the article's creator, User:Rogerbalta. Clearly the article is an auto-biography and is pure vanity. The lack of references is not of itself a reason for deletion (except under the BLP-Prod "rules"), but a Google search produces very little, other than programme schedules which mention his name. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability in this autobio. Author not responding to efforts to engage him. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Promotional CV, unencyclopaedic, autobographical. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rogerbalta blanked the page at this [35]. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 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 Boston_Marathon_bombings#Suspects. Closing this (very) early, I know, per WP:SNOW, WP:PERP, and the obvious fact that both this AfD and the article in question are not helping the encyclopaedia. This article may need to be recreated in a few weeks as more information on the last few days comes to light. Alex Muller 08:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamerlan Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon bombings)[edit]

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

Discussion at Talk:Tamerlan Tsarnaev supported a redirect rather than individual article, this is also WP:ONEEVENT case Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regardless of whether Tamerlan Tsarnaev stays as a redirect or is expanded, having another article on him is just... well, I won't say that. WP:CIVIL and all. It is—redundant. We don't need it. Ignatz mice•talk 04:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep there is not a accurate redirect of Tamerlan Tsarnaev to Tamerlan Tsarnaev#Suspects. Alborzagros (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough information/relevance for a standalone article.--JasonMacker (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as mentioned above. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect or merge to Boston Marathon bombings. --Jayron32 05:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jayron32. ApprenticeFan ^work 05:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jayron32. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, this is a clear case, the guy is "notable" only due to the terrorist attack he apparently committed in Boston. All relevant information should go to the main article about bombings → (Boston_Marathon_bombings#Suspects). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Boston Marathon bombings. WoundedWolfgirl (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. In any case, the title is incorrect regardless of the decision. Tamerlan Tsarnaev would suffice if article is to be kept. But I don't support keeping it anyway. werldwayd (talk) 08:42, 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 Speedied A7 - no real claim to significance. Peridon (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa White (author)[edit]

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

Subject of article is author of two self-published books, and has a YouTube channel, but otherwise close to Wikipedia:CSD#A7. Shirt58 (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete The probably autobiographical author of this article removed a CSD A7 which seems the right way for this article to go. No evidence that the subject is notable, whether as author or as media performer. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Other than a mention in this magazine that merely shows an image and a brief caption (emphasis on brief), there isn't any actual mention of her out there that would really begin to talk about her at all. She just isn't notable. I'd almost suggest speedying it as promotion, given phrases like "seasoned scribe" and " full of life changing revelation, deliverance, healing and elevation" but it sort of runs the thin line. Might be worth a try. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:31, 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 delete. WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couch burning[edit]

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

Non notable article about a subject not covered anywhere else Steve9821 (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!! KEEP!! KEEP!! KEEP!! KEEP!! This phenomenon is well-referenced.
- Links: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] See? Lots of references to couch burning. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete real but also really trivial. Could be mentioned in some WVU article, but not worth a seperate article or even a redirect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single source doesn't help it to pass WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a stonewall A7 speedy delete IMHO. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7, nothing reliable provided by the article creator anywhere, and no evidence of notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:05, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Amos[edit]

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

Signed to clubs, but hasn't made an appearance. (Currently unattached, possible autobiography, but these are not reasons to delete.) Shirt58 (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Clearly only playing at a very low level of the game. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons above. Player who failed to make it in the pro game trying to use WP to help promote his attempts to get back in, or something..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs normal failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Debojyoti (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, I find lots on Ben Amos, but I haven't found any evidence of a Lewis Amos ever being a trainee at Tottenham. I haven't found any other evidence for the other clubs other than playing for Braintree. Govvy (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played in a competitive match in a fully pro league, which means he fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG as he hasn't received in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:44, 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Palladino[edit]

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

This person is relatively unknown, an a non-public figure maju (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 5 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) 20:16, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While the subject can't simply inherit notability from Mashape, there does seem to be enough mention in the sources given to establish notability separately from the company. Not that I'm saying there is simply enough, I think it just scrapes by WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:42, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 12:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Futurednb.net[edit]

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

Unable to find much in the way of reliable, secondary sources which provide coverage of this music web site. Kmag probably at least has been at times, at a wide level, somewhat reliable, the link used as a reference and this more recent update, the two references here look more to be quick blog posts, and perhaps written from PRs, and don't quite seem to me to have reached the GNG bar. Tried the usual Googley searches plus Highbeam, which sometimes comes through on coverage of media, but not here. Additional sources welcome. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 6 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, MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 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) 01:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as seems promotional. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Joe Decker my searches have not turned up any references that could demonstrate WP:NWEB notability. AllyD (talk) 08:15, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sopra Group[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since July 2009. Non-notable business, another IT Consulting and Services company. The only third party references currently in the article appear to be puff pieces from a business page occasioned by the announcement of a co-founder's retirement, and are not chiefly about the business. I don't find anything better. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 19:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how can a business with ten thousand employees not be notable? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, for starters, it may not have done anything to get it remembered in an encyclopedia. All I am finding are routine announcements and press releases and directory listings. Having many employees may get it past speedy deletion, but isn't notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:26, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - ~~As nom stated, no WP:RS, so doesn't meet WP:GNG.~~FeatherPluma (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Under active reconsideration based on input below from Phil Bridger. Anticipate posting in a day or two. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional, fails WP:CORP as a result of a lack of WP:RS. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary keep per Phil Bridger's inputs below, will reconsider. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if none of the nine refernces provided in this article are WP:RS? Ottawahitech (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the WP:ADVERT issue, a company's financial reports don't satisfy RS. There doesn't seem to be significant third-party coverage here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google News archive search linked by the nomination procedure finds significant coverage in sources such as Le Figaro [41][42] and L'Express [43][44], as would be expected for any company quoted on the Paris Bourse. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references foiund by Phil listed above are sufficient. The Bourse is a major stock exchange, and as a first approximation, all companies listed there are likely to be notable. I agree the article is written in a routine promotional way, and needs some editing, but it does not require fundamental rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Truffle Capital's listing "Truffle 100 France" for 2013 has ranked the Sopra Group as the no. 2 software company in France, behind Dassault Systèmes (article in Boursier.com [45], see last paragraph). There seem to be plenty of third-party sources in French, and French Wikipedia's Business wikiproject has given the corresponding article a medium importance rating. (I think we may be engaging in some unintentional anglophone bias here. That few anglophone editors have heard of something doesn't automatically mean it's not notable.) The article does need to re-written in a non-promtional style and encorporate more material from third party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naŋar (talk • contribs) 13:46, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandeep Singh Sodhi[edit]

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

Article does not establish the notability or significance of the person. Danrok (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Despite some bare html links thrown in there (and quite a few of them fail WP:RS or are only passing mentions), there doesn't seem to be a clear pass of WP:GNG here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatantly promotional to boot.Deb (talk) 19:31, 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baykus Music[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable record label. Fails WP:GNG with no cases of independent and significant coverage from a reliable source found with a Google News search or a Google News Archive search, although, that may be due to a language barrier. Also fails to satisfy any part of WP:ORG and WP:NMUSIC doesn't apply to labels. Lastly, none of the artists whom participate in anything relating to this label seem to be notable. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 6 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:46, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to establish notability of the subject; seems like an open and shut case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:39, 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.