< 3 September	5 September >

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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 18:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hossain Mohammad Faysal[edit]

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

Autobiography of non-notable person. Sole reference backs up almost nothing in the article. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 23:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially an unsourced BLP. Hairhorn (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is unsourced. 131.181.19.44 (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2012 (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. Der yck C. 11:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political Competitive Advantage[edit]

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

WP:OR and lacking independent coverage. The SPA creator of the article has the same name as the author of the referenced thesis. The only solid coverage I'm seeing in google that uses this term is the authors' website. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from George Bowen Have removed deletion notice from Political Competition Adv article as is referenced to my thesis deposited at Bodleian Library in Oxford and to me as a lecturer at The Queens College Oxford. What more references do you require if any? Thanks George Arthur Bowen (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)George Arthur Bowen

The WP:GNG requires sources that have covered the topic in depth and are intellectually and financially independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be nothing more than a synopsis of the author's paper and does not include any WP:RS to indicate notability. The references shown (in the references section, not in the long litany of unstructured reference materials in the main article, with which I have no idea what I am supposed to do), only indicate that the author is in fact a lecturer at Queens College, Oxford and that a paper of similar title (though in the textile industry) was in fact written. Neither of those are reliable sources for this article. Even if the author is or becomes notable per WP's policies, (which I don't believe is currently the case) it doesn't mean that every paper written has the same notability. Unfortunately, this article is exclusively WP:OR and should be deleted. I suggest Dr. Bowen read the policies on WP:RS and WP:GNG so he understands what we mean by "reference". We're not saying that the research and paper aren't valuable and important, they've just not reached the point of being encyclopedic. If some reliable sources start widespread quoting or profiling of Dr. Bowen about this topic, then he in fact might become notable and his paper would be used as a reference to his own notability. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 09:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO. The author (who has a conflict of interest) would be advised to digest the guidance linked to in the welcome message on his talk page, and seek to contribute knowledge to the encyclopedia in accordance with established procedures. Is that non-BITEy enough? -- Trevj (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author of subject article is encouraged to read and familiarize himself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The subject can be revived (or rewritten) when it becomes notable in the future. GuterTag (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Santos[edit]

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

No claim of notability, no resources to match beyond routine, and does not meet GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources found, no real assertation of notability (host of a redlinked radio show). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:41, 4 September 2012 (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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teodor von Burg[edit]

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

Deprodded without explanition or addressing the concern which was:

Not notable. Ref consists of an entry in a table, presumably a list of winners but a primary source and not enough for article. No reliable secondary sources and a search turns up very little, at least in English. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is added new article as reference. --Backij (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added several new references, all from very reliable sources. His surname reads Fon Burg, so the article should be moved to Teodor fon Burg; while his descent is obviously German, it should be respelt according to Serbian rules. Googling for "Teodor fon Burg" reveals hundreds of media references. No such user (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, his original surname is "von Burg" since his father is Swiss, but because he's been living in Serbia where they have a phonetic letter, his surname in Serbian reads as "fon Burg". Being the actual No. 1 in the IMO Hall of Fame, Teodor von Burg has deserved his article in the Wikipedia. MagdavonBurg (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)MagdavonBurg[reply]

Keep. I'm not convinced by the IMO hall of fame listing, because it's too brief to count for WP:GNG (just a name and some numbers), despite his high position in the list. But the B92 and Blic stories look like enough depth of reliable coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is very important in mathematics competitions because he is first in hall of fame for more than 50 years. --Djordjes (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball runs scored champions[edit]

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

Not very notable, evident as there are no sources that specifically refer to "runs scored champions." Furthermore, the single-season achievement of runs scored is less notable than RBIs (which make up part of the Triple Crown). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect I would support a redirect into an article entitled List of Major League Baseball offensive statistic champions which would list HR, RBI, hits, runs, and SB champions. That way they'd all be in one place...I know this would be a very long article but I just think that it would be good to have it all in one place. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that idea is HR, RBI and batting champions should not be amalgamated into a single list with other offensive stats. Those three lists are FLs and make up the featured topic for the Triple Crown. It's better to keep them separate due to their featured status. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that...that's true. If the new article could be made a featured list, that would work. Or the proposed new page could be entitled List of MLB auxiliary offensive statistic champions or something to that effect. I think the topic of this article is important, but I just can't quite see it being a stand-alone article with only one reference from BR. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Runs scored is a standard and important statistic in major league baseball, and major league baseball is one of the most notable sports in the world. The content is verifiable and raises no other issues that would militate against retention. As a minor quibble, I think that runs scored leaders is a more usual wording than champions, so I would support a rename. (The phrasing might also explain why the nominator is getting few Google hits.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newyorkbrad. AutomaticStrikeout 21:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are lots of baseball statistics, but not all of them deserve to have lists of the annual leaders. Are there any sources that demonstrate WP:LISTN, namely that "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"? Articles with prose are expected to establish notability, not references to statistics pages.—Bagumba (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note on MLB.COM that Runs is listed ahead of everything except Games and At-Bats.[1] Baseball rule 10.02 specifies that after a given game, the official scorer will report the stats for each player. The first of these is At-Bats. The second is Runs scored. The third is Hits. (The value of "Games", obviously, is always "1" in that circumstance.) The Elias official annual follows a similar convention: After service records and averages, the first raw stats are At-Bats, then Runs, then Hits. The Sporting News record book, which ceased publication in 2007, followed a similar convention: Service Records, Averages, and then At-Bats, Runs, Hits, etc. The earliest box scores in the game had just two batting stats: Number of Runs, and Number of Times Put Out. As with this 1867 example.[2] Runs scored has ALWAYS been the most important stat, apart from a team's winning percentage, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think where mlb.com lists them is an adequate representation of their importance. I think that when people are talking about stats, BA and HR come first, and everything else is secondary. Therefore, I'd suggest merging runs scored, at bats, stolen bases, and whatever other non-triple crown stats people feel necessary into one article. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Triple crown is a "glamour" stat, but it doesn't win pennants. Scoring runs win pennants. In case you've forgotten, it's about winning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand that, but the role of Wikipedia is not to determine the stats that are most important to winning, but rather the most notable stats that people are interested in reading about. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You should maybe read Sabermetrics, which discusses the great importance of runs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        (Bugs, I agree with you, but we should probably see what a couple of other people have to say.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd like to see a citation as to what stats people are most interested in reading about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        First off, I'd like to clarify, I have don't dispute for a second that runs are the most important total in baseball, but just a quick google news search of "rbi leaders" and "runs scoring leaders" definitely shows far more articles about the RBI than the run scoring lead. As noted by Bloom, the triple crown stat listings are all featured lists, while this is cited only by a baseball reference page. Runs scoring totals get far less coverage than BA, RBI, and HR. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It would actually make more sense to combine all these season-by-season leaders onto a single page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*(In response to Baseball Bugs' earlier comment) "Runs scored has ALWAYS been the most important stat." Do you have a source for that? So far, no one has provided an independent reliable sources that specifically mentions "runs scored champions." Having just BR as the sole citation is unacceptable. Multiple sources are needed to establish notability. So long as no one provides a source referring specifically to "runs scored champions," all these "keep" votes can be (and should be) treated as just votes. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Sabermetrics and Bill James, like I already told you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add to the list of refs then. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - In response to your earlier comment about combining them all, that's what I originally proposed, but Bloom had a good point that the triple crown stats are all featured lists and disjointing them might not be a good idea, unless the new article will be a featured list, which it probably won't be, at least right away. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a featured topic as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Runs scored is the most important statistic except for winning percentage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RBIs have long been considered the more important stat, evident as it is part of the Triple Crown. Furthermore, RBIs have definitely played a role in getting many players into the HOF. On the other hand, how many players do you know were inducted primarily base on the number of runs they scored? Let me guess, none. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look on this page[3] where they have the all-time leaders in runs scored, and see how many are either in the Hall, or are likely to be, or who would be if they weren't de facto or actually banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're in the Hall, but not because of the number of runs they scored. Big difference. No one should blow this statistic out of proportion and give it undue hype (which is what's happening). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want me to break it down for you – Carl Yastrzemski (3,000 hit club, Triple Crown), Hank Aaron (all-time home run leader, all-time RBI leader, 3000 hits), Babe Ruth (500 home runs, then-all time home run leader), Rickey Henderson (3000 hits, all-time stolen base record), Ty Cobb (3000 hits, then-all time hits leader, 6th in RBIs), Stan Musial (3000 hits, 5th in RBIs) and Willie Mays (3000 hits, 500 home runs, 10th in RBIs). Get the picture? Yes, these players may have scored a ton of runs, but that's certainly not the reason why they're in the HOF. There achievements in other stat categories is what got them in. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum Billy Hamilton got into the HOF heavily due to his runs scored (his HOF plaque starts by noting that he holds the single season record for runs scored and ends by noting that he scored 100 or more runs 10 times). And Ricky Henderson would likely have gotten into the HOF without being the all-time runs scored leader, but that was certainly heavily mentioned as one of elements of why he was HOF-worthy. And we can play the game of "he would have been in the HOF even without that" with any of the stats. Henderson himself would be in the HOF without being the SB leader, because of his 3000 hits and being the all time runs scored leader. Babe Ruth would be in the HOF if he had only 714 RBIs just because of his 714 HRs, etc. The HOF is based on a package of achievements. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Runs scored is an important stat; if not quite as notable historically as RBIs that gap in attention has narrowed recently due to the work of Bill James and other Sabermetricians, and being a triple crown stat is not the standard for notability for such a list. I agree with NewYorkBrad that the title should refer to "runs scored leaders" rather than "champions," as leaders is the more common usage. Here is a source specifically using the term "leaders" for players who had the most runs scored in their league each season.[4]. Certainly leading the league in runs scored has long been deemed important enough to get you on a baseball card, e.g., [5], which distinguishes this from less prominent stat leaders. Rlendog (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at Baseball Digest's most recent issue, page 13 shows the leaders in 5 batting categories for the 1950s (admittedly a decade list rather than an annual list); one of the stats deemed important enough to show was (not surprisingly) runs scored (the others being batting average, RBI, home runs and stolen bases). Rlendog (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I suggested combining the five into one article...Go Phightins! (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting News also seems to deem the list of runs scored leaders worthy of a place in its Baseball Record Book [6]. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." It seems that articles with prose are needed to establish the notability of annual runs leaders.—Bagumba (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSTATSBOOK describes what Wikipedia should contain (or not), not what is required of a source to demonstrate notability. In any case, there are plenty of sources describing the importance of runs in baseball, which can also be used to flesh out the prose lede (as required by WP:NOTSTATSBOOK). Rlendog (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I would imagine that pretty much any source that provides a list of runs leaders (which is specific to a particular league) would take the importance of runs scored (which is fundamental to baseball at any level) to be self-evident. Rlendog (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. It would be an easier decision to keep for me if a guideline like WP:LISTN was met with references with prose discussing the significance of the group.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This list has a bit of prose attached [7] but not too edifying. Rlendog (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interject, but I was just wanted to comment that the intro to the article is entirely unsourced and contains some unreferenced opinionated statements such as While runs scored is considered an important individual batting statistic, it is regarded as less significant than runs batted in (RBIs)—superiority in the latter, for instance, is one of the elements of the exceptional batting achievement known as the Triple Crown. That, I know, is more an editing issue than a deletion issue, but it's just a comment. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability of subject should be unquestioned. As others have commented before me, I do find it somewhat odd that so many MLB editors who will turn up at AfD to defend an article can't be bothered to add some salient text and sourced footnotes to a supposedly core topic article. Insightful text and reliable sources should be the defining differences between an encyclopedia and a sports almanac full of random lists of statistics. Wikipedia is supposed to be the former, not the latter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2012 (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, G12 copyvio from subject's website. (Non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 03:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaylan tucker[edit]

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

Non-notable child actor and I haven't found any reliable evidence to establish notability or any evidence that proves he has achieved any acting roles yet. Despite that the article claims he has a recurring role for a FOX TV series, IMDb shows zero TV series appearances. As for the commercials, they would be insufficient to establish notability. Honestly, I believe it may be too soon for an article, perhaps a few years from now if he establishes himself as a well-known actor. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His roles to date do not seem to satisfy WP:ENT, and I'm unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources for this person to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 19:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. If this remains, there's some sort of copyvio going on with the IMDB page, in at least a sentence or two, but I doubt it will matter. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe both the IMDb biography and this article were COI, the IMDb bio claims his mother wrote it and this article reads like a talent agency wrote it. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Far from meeting WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only does the kid not meet notability standards, but the page is pretty heavily lifted from his personal website word for word. Only thing it doesn't include is his agent's phone number. [8]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2012 (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, default to delete given potential BLP and personal attack problems in the inflamed discussion below.

Mohammed Ansar[edit]

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

If you came here because https://twitter.com/MoAnsar, 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)).

This page is for a figure who has clearly done some valuable community work in the UK but there is no indication that he meets the Notability, general guideline WP:GNG. The Sources are either not independent of the subject or are not significant, ie they are to media articles which merely include trivial mentions within coverage of separate stories (not about the subject) or which do not mention him at all Q1445 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this Page Mo is a great advocate for equality and unity among different faiths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.254.129 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 September 2012‎

Mohammed is a notable Muslim figure, regularly on British television and radio and someone who commentates on a variety of issues. He has tackled the far right and Muslim extremists in media debates and is one of very few Muslims on television in Britain. He is regularly attacked by Islamophobes, racists, the far right and also Muslims for his progressive views on homosexuality and treatment of minority groups. Far more significant than "valuable community work" - probably a biased review within itself. If the issue is better references than let's say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.3.238 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note is the regular guidance that he provides to individuals on issues of faith using Twitter and social media sources and Mo does not dissuade from discussing any matter of faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.199.254 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 4 September 2012‎

I began the article, and I tweet with the gentleman a lot, so I am not a disinterested party. Mr. Ansar is appearing on the BBC again next week, which is hardly trivial, and he is a notable Muslim presence on the British airwaves and on social media. (How many television appearances does it take to achieve Wikipedia notability, BTW? Is there a magic number?) Too, in a sense Mr. Ansar reminds me of Harold Nicolson, who was described as being "a national figure of the second degree." In terms of Muslim advocacy, he is just that in the British media. And even if, for the sake of argument, his influence was tertiary or quaternary, the low hanging fruit have long since been picked on Wikipedia. kencf0618 (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the article should be considered for deletion on the grounds that he does not meet the general notabilıty criteria. It ıs also very poor ın terms of the qualıty of ıts references. Agree that vırtually all of the sources are either not independent of the subject or are not significant, ie they are to media articles which merely include trivial mentions within coverage of separate stories (not about the subject) or which do not mention him at all. I have not seen any evıdence that Mohammed Ansar has any Islamıc or Arabıc language qualıfıcatıons whatsoever. Evıdence for hıs 'valuable role ın the communıty' ıs certaınly not provıded by ındependent references. Although he he ıs a chaplaın and sıts on varıous local commıttees he does not act as an Imam or organısed leader of the Muslım communıty ın the local area where he lıves (Chandlers Ford/ Hampshıre). Although he has around 4000 Twıtter followers and has made sporadıc TV and radıo appearances, none of these have been as an expert panelıst and I do not thınk these automatıcally ınfer notabılıty. Claıms such as 'vısıtıng lecturer' need to be ındependently referenced and explaıned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.9.113.196 (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, above entry contınued. Most of us would agree that our local Parish Prıest wouldn't warrant a Wikıpaedia entry even ıf he had been on TV once or twıce. Had Mo Ansar been a prıest or Imam/clergy man thıs would have been consıdered. But the fact that he sıts on a few PTA type local commıttees does not ın my opınıon make hım an Imam. Also, apart from a very medıocre blog he has no serıous Islamıc publıcatıons to speak of eıther ın peer revıewed journals or formally publıshed lıterature. COI I am an academıcally qualıfıed Muslım (PhD ın Islamıc Studıes) and I resent unqualıfıed 'commentators' speakıng on our behalf. He should at least obtaın somethıng more an a GCSE ın Islamıc Studıes before he starts actıng as an 'expert, on Islam. Another COI, untıl 3 years ago I used to lıve ın Chandlers Ford and dıd not observe hım to have any major role or sıgnıfıcant followıng amongst the local Muslım communıty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.9.113.196 (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are inappropriate as is disclosing personal information about a public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenger786 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 September 2012‎

Delete for precisely the reasons given immediately above. I appreciate his local-level community work, and I can see he is a highly motivated man and that he tweets and keeps a blog (as do countless people), but these things alone do not satisfy the notability guidelines. The lack of references in the article -- let alone GOOD references -- is something that needs to be addressed regardless of the page's rentention. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for anyone to provide an independent reference for the 'valuable local community work' and for evidence of his role in the 'creeping Sharia' debacle? Apart from spending half his life on Twitter does he have anything significant that can be verified to merit Wikis notability criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.10.145.72 (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It must be referenced or removed. The "creeping Sharia" stuff must be treated likewise, particularly as WP:BLP guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the creeping sharia meme is non contentious material. You have removed the referenced to the interview which went out to several million viewers on the world largest Muslim channel, the Islam Channel. Awaiting a reference does not support deletion of the information in its entirely. Clearly you have some biased intent towards the individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenger786 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 September 2012‎

Do not delete Clearly there is a lot of non-WP:NPOV above and biased attacking of this Muslim figure in the UK. It is not unexpected. Some of this seems irrational and irrelevant and we should assume could be anti-Islam / Muslim hostility. I don't believe Ansar has claimed to be either an Imam or Islamic academic scholar. The personal attacks above are irrelevant to the notability argument. According to his Ansar's Twitter feed, he is under special protection from the Police due to threats from the far right and English Defence League supporters, some of which have already been convicted. We should remove reference to his home location.Avenger786 (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you delete the page of one of the leading Muslims on British tv? This is Islamophobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.112.26 (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Do Not Delete!] - Opinions as to whether Mr Ansar is an official imam or an Islamic scholar are irrelevant in terms of whether his page should be deleted or not. The significant issue is the contribution he makes to society and particularly his influence on social media where he has a substantial following. He regularly debates with important figures, interacts with a extensive network of Muslims and non-Muslims. He is therefore significant in terms of multifaith dialogue and is well respected by members of the Christian, Jewish and Atheist community with whom he has productive and positive dialogue. I would suggest that the page should be edited as opposed to deleted. The act of deletion seems to stem from a personal dislike rather than an objective view of a person's influence within the media, his local community and on social networking sites. I, for instance, would happily see Kim Kardashian deleted from wikipedia but I have to concede that she has a substantial following however banal she may be. (user: saritaagerman posted 8 Sept) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.218.194.80 (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Avenger786, I hope you are well. Actually, I think that Mr Ansar seems a very nice man and on talk pages (including this one) I have praised his local community work and his obvious enthusiasm for good causes. I have no axe to grind whatsover against him. But, believe it or not, some of the editors who edit his page are neither detractors nor fans. I for one am just an ordinary Wikipedia editor who has both an opinion and the right to share it. My only intention is to keep pages tight, clean, unbiased, relevant and well referenced. You may disagree with my views. That's your right. But accusations of bias are needless. I repeat: he seems like a perfectly decent man, and I wish him well in life. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear George Custer's Sabre, thank you for your comments. I hope you are keeping well. You are 100% right about keeping pages tight and clean. Mr Ansar is not known for his community work, for this reason I've taken it off the page. It bloats the article unnecessarily and there is too much (arguably) irrelevant and non notable information there. With no disrespect to that work, we cant have people outlining their entire work history. However there are some important issues here. Islamophobia or anti Muslim hate is a serious matter. This person is a leading activist and moderate, a progressive thinker who talks (and is criticised for his stance) on gay rights, evolution, faith and politics. He has many enemies on social media including the EDL, Robert Spencer, the zionist lobby amongst others. The police are actively prosecuting people who have attacked and abused him and his children. He is regularly on television screens in the UK and there are very, very few (almost none) notable orthodox Muslim commentators on television in the UK. We cannot strike out one of only a handful. Kind regards, Avenger786 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Dear Avenger786, I am sure you weren't meaning me when you made your bold claim about anti-Islamic bias in the recent edits. I've made over 11,000 Wikipedia edits, most of them on the pages of Muslim (and esp. Pakistani) scholars, poets and authors whom I find interesting or, in many case, admire. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear George Custer's Sabre, the assertion he does not meet the notability criteria can only be made if wilfully ignoring (or undervaluing) the contribution this person makes in the UK. Constant removal on his page of the contexts and importance of his contribution seems to be an attempt to reduce his notability. WP reflects contemporary commentators, context is everything. Notable does not only mean famous - we resist the day we base WP entries on numbers of Twitter followers. Agree with your views that more citations are needed but some of them are clearly absurd. One citation you have asked for is where Mr Ansar makes the claim the EDL are linked to Breivik. It is in the video of the BBC1 debate - you need only watch it. We cannot remove material on this basis or start littering with 'citations required'. What is VERY disturbing is the fact it is not only listed for deletion, but fast track deletion. This says something about bias. It certainly says something about strength of motivation, it is not about expediency. Kind regards, Avenger786 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i dont see why this page shud be deleted, Mohammad's one of the few who have tackled Islamophobia so well. This page must be visible so people know what British Muslims went through few years on & how Mohammad tackled such sensitive issues. Why delete one of the few sane voices in the Islamic community? (re-posted, as placed in wrong area)

[Do Not Delete!] Muhammad Ansar is one of the few well-known advocates of Islam and one of the few well known Muslims who not only voices his opinions, tackles issues on daytime TV and has befriended academics such as Tom Holland, but also heavily engages with the public on social networks as well as attending conferences and lectures, so he does a lot of valuable ground work. He is also a major contributor to inter-faith and political dialogue and his views are representative of the majority of Muslims, so cutting him off would be cutting off a valuable contributor of discourse. He is also one of the few Muslims attempting to tackle sensitive issues which affect us all, one of the few who are treading on controversial ground, one of the few who are trying to rise above the limitations inherited by Muslims in the west and break the mould and the barriers of communication. So putting a foot down on Muhammad would be putting a foot down on valuable commentary, integration and suppressing a sincere attempt to engage with our society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.18.206 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objections against the individual based on:

biased, personalised comments (irrelevant)
lack of broader citations (agreed upon)
bloated article (now redacted)
notability guidelines (now retracted)

Propose: article is returned to normal status Avenger786 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose: Delete for the reasons mentioned higher on this page. After cleaning up this article to get a good look at what remains after the removal of clutter (even though more has subsequently been added, in my view), and having searched the internet to see what the subject has been doing, I do not believe that he meets notability requirements.)) George Custer's Sabre (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose: article is returned to normal status Although Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Muhammad Ansar is, so to speak, notability timber. He is a prominent Muslim advocate in the UK media, and in the ultra-bandwidth world of social media (such as Twitter) his influence is such that arguably the (proper) citations haven't caught up with him yet. Of course I speak here as an decided eventualist and inclusionist. kencf0618 (talk)

George Custer's Sabre you clearly are personally pursuing for total deletion, not revision and are hell bent on making sure it happens. Despite Mr Ansar being on BBC1 debates, political programs, radio shows and giving key expert commentary in areas of public debate, you have attempted to delete the context to his appearances including the one hour television interview on the recent 'Islam:The Unknown Story' controversy. Merely because you have some difficulty fathoming the notability of his appearances, it DOES fit the WP guidelines. Your arguments are entirely subjective and a personal position. WP:NPOV is here for entirely for that reason and to provide protection against bias. The notability argument does not stand since the article itself references at a number of examples of his appearances on mainstream British television as a main guest and commentator on programs. You must set aside your personal issues and be rational. Avenger786 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mo Ansar fits a criteria similar to Usama Hasan which was a keep. Visit the talk page, and the deletion discussion is on the top. Mo is well known commentator popular in the journalistic community within UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asifkhanj (talk • contribs) 14:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether this article is deleted or not it requires significant improvement in its sources and content

"He is a visiting lecturer at the University of Winchester speaking on theology, Islamophobia and Islam in contemporary Britain" - Any evidence for this claim? There is no reference to Mr Ansar on the University website. Does visiting lecturer mean that he came in once and gave a talk, or does it mean that he is a qualified university academic in these areas. Please provide a reference for this claim or delete.

"In August 2012, Channel 4 aired a documentary by British historian Tom Holland called Islam: The Untold Story.[2] The controversial documentary attracted significant media coverage, and outrage from the British Muslim community, receiving over 1200 complaints.[3][4][5] On 6th September 2012, Ansar gave an exclusive one hour interview on the subject to the Islam Channel[citation needed]. Ansar discussed his relationship with Holland, his recent book In the Shadow of the Sword, upon which the documentary was based, and the potential impact for Islamophobia and far right groups such as the English Defence League"

If you wish to include this section, please modify it to talk about Mr Ansar and his views, rather than discussing the documentary itself.

"After their televised debate, knock-on exchanges on Twitter between Mohammed Ansar and Tommy Robinson led to the comedic #CreepingSharia Internet meme being generated when Tommy expressed his disgust that the Taj Mahal (which he mistakenly thought was a mosque) was displayed on Twitter's home page.[8] The debacle was reported in the British press.[9][10]"

Again, please provide a reference to support Mr Ansar's involvement in the 'creeping sharia' hashtag creation or delete the section. This is not an article about Tommy Robinson and neither of the two references cited mention Mr Ansar.

Agree with the above comments that article should be considered for deletion. Does not meet notability criteria. If not deleted, then unreferenced claims should be removed as they are misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliviaCunningham (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced claims are not misleading, they are just unreferenced. For example, the Islam Channel interview as an expert guest went out to several million viewers which people watched live. We have no reference or citation for it (yet). It is absurd to suggest it is misleading. Again, further calls to entirely delete an article which appears to be indicative of improper bias or a non-NPOV approach as it is illogical and irrational. Where citations are needed, they should be gathered, or even requested. A line of text to provide a context for the Holland controversy and interview is not unreasonable in light of the gravity of the story. It is a regular practice for articles. Removing the contexts for debates, activities or discussions are designed to create a prejudicial view of individuals. The further calls based on non-notability, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are now discredited. The individual (whether people like it or not) is a regular Muslim spokesman on British television. People are curious to know more about him. This is what WP is for.Avenger786 (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started this discussion, which is starting to get a bit rambling, so I though it would be a good time to respond to what appear to be the key arguments in favour of keeping this article and make the case for delete:

(1) That Mohammed Ansar is "a great advocate for equality and unity among different faiths" and has done praiseworthy work challenging bigotry. I don't doubt that this is the case, but so are many other people who do not merit a Wiki page. This is simply not an argument which should be considered as it does not provide any evidence of his personal significance.

(2) That Ansar regularly appears on television/comments in the media. He should perhaps be compared with Raheem Kassam, whose Wiki page was recently (and in my view, rightly) deleted on the grounds that he did not meet the notability guidelines, despite there being greater evidence of him appearing regularly in major media outlets like the BBC.

If there is a trend of deleting Muslims who are on television in the UK as being non-notable, then we need to consider this potentially discriminatory policy.

To go through his (listed) media appearances one by one: (a) The Big Questions - he was not a main guest and merely contributed to a discussion - he was not the subject of the programme.

INCORRECT - He has appeared four times and was a main guest the last two times. We need to ask why the contrary is being claimed.

(b) The Politics Show - he only appeared on a local edition of this show, not the national one. He is clearly invited on as a representative of the Muslim Council of Southampton (ie the area where that local edition was broadcast) and therefore this is only evidence of him being involved in a local group which was asked to contribute to a local TV discussion, not of his own personal significance. Again, he was merely contributing to a discussion rather than being the subject of the programme.

INCORRECT - The South Today region covers approximately a fifth of the UK.

(c) Sunday Morning Live - is not a prominent programme and he was just one of three guests who contributed to the discussion in the studio. Again, he was merely a contributor to a discussion.

INCORRECT - This is a Sunday morning religion and ethics program on national BBC1 aired to the whole of the UK. Mr Ansar was a main guest and expert panellist discussing a number of issues along with other recognised personalities. Watch the program if you are unsure.

(d) A number of radio programmes - which are all unsourced but there is no evidence provided that he was anything other than a contributor to a discussion, rather than the subject of the programmes.

NOT RELEVANT - radio programs can be rarely sourced, often circumstantial evidence (such as other promotional material, social media) needs to be used

Significant concern that the irrational and unfounded nature of these arguments suggest a serious level of subjective bias against the subject of this article.

Also concerning is the suggestion Muslim commentators are being removed from WP unreasonably

Avenger786 These are serious allegations which you are making against me, and entirely unfounded. Suggest we stick to topic of discussion rather than suggesting that one another has malign motives for taking part. --Q1445 (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objective assessment of the article has resulted in redaction and deletion of the less notable community work. We cannot commit death by a thousand cuts and so we must recognise his media appearances and noteworthy debates (specifically against the far right in Britain). Avenger786 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - Notability guidelines cannot be applied prejudicially to support a concluded view to remove an article. As there is no straightforward explanation for the non-neutral stance of the objectors (or the personalised attacks) and the extreme nature of the responses (deletion not revision) we can only conclude other motives.

I would conclude that there is no evidence of media interest in Ansar himself - he has merely contributed to discussions about other matters.

INCORRECT - Media interest is not the test used for notability. It is an individual's contribution and work. WP is not here to reflect media interest but notable works.Avenger786 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(3) That he regularly engages with significant people on Twitter. To this I would provide two responses: (a) This is no evidence that he himself is of significance. Anybody can create a Twitter account and engage with anybody they like through it. (b) Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If somebody can provide an independent source which explains the significance of Ansar's role on Twitter then there would be grounds for a discussion. However, in the absence of any third party sources about Ansar's activity on Twitter then his Twitter activity should not be considered an argument in favour of his inclusion on Wiki.

CORRECT - The individual's Twitter use is incidental to his contributions.

(4) That he has debated with prominent figures like Anjem Choudary or Tommy Robinson. This is much like points one and three; it provides no evidence that Ansar himself is of significance.

INCORRECT - A civil rights activist and community organiser who debates with both Muslim and Far Right extremists, in the British media, is notable.Avenger786 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(5) That attempts to delete Ansar's page are "Islamophobia" and are intended to somehow attack a moderate figure. This is a serious allegation. If there is any evidence of Wikipedia editors holding anti-Muslim views then they should certainly be held to account through proper processes. However, this is an entirely separate matter to the question of Ansar's personal significance - which is what we are discussing here. If there is evidence of his personal significance, then he should stay. However, my view is very much that there is no such evidence and therefore this article should be deleted.

Unfounded objections are being posited which are refuted from the reference themselves and we now also see evidence of other potentially prejudicial actions. Inferences must be drawn from illogical actions and arguments which are ill conceived.

(6) That the proper citations have not yet caught up with Ansar. At best this is original research and at worst this is pure conjecture. Every article needs proper citations now - not in the hypothetical future - and the fact there aren't enough yet is precisely why this article should be deleted.

INCORRECT - It has been stated that at least one major media interview is not yet able to be cited but should be shortly.Avenger786 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To conclude, this article should be deleted. It is incumbent upon those who want to keep it to prove that Ansar is himself significant. They need to provide third party, independent sources which prove that there is external interest in Ansar as a figure - not simply that he has contributed to discussions about other matters. 08:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q1445 (talk • contribs)

INCORRECT - It is an absurd suggestion that we discard and discount media commentators, who are purely engaged to provide their opinions.Avenger786 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting that we should discard media commentators. However, there needs to be a way of objectively assessing whether somebody is notable, not merely the opinions of individual contributors. The way of assessing this is whether there are independent and significant secondary sources about the subject of the article. Unless there are examples of such sources (I have searched the internet and found none) then this article should be deleted. Q1445 (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to answer a simple question: how many appearances on national television as a guest / expert commentator do we need to have for someone to make them notable?

The guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria are pretty clear. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" There are two key matters of importance arising from this. (1) Ansar is not the subject of any of the sources (merely a contributor to a discussion about something else) and (2) the sources provided are not secondary. --Q1445 (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the AFD discussion about Raheem Kassam is here. Many of the key issues are similar or the same - the conclusion was that the article should be deleted because Kassam had clearly been quoted in media contributing to discussions but there were no independent sources which discussed Kassam at length. This is certainly the case with Ansar, and therefore he should also be deleted.

Q1445 (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Application of the WP Notability Guidelines[edit]

The relevant sections are made available below

A. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

B. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.

C. An accepted category is specifically stated to include "opinion makers with significant roles in television shows" (as defined in the guidelines).

In special cases it is stated that where a case fails to meet basic criteria but meeting additional criteria, if neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria, either:

Merge the article into a broader article providing context, or
If no article currently exists into which the person can be merged, consider writing the article yourself or request the article be written.

Where there is a failure to explain the subject's notability Try to improve it by

rewriting it yourself or
asking the article's editor(s) for advice.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:

Look for sources yourself, or
Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources, or
Put a tag on the article to notify other editors

SUMMARY

The guidelines clearly state that individuals such as Mohammed Ansar - an "opinion maker with significant roles in television shows" - meets notability criteria.
It has been stated from multiple sources and links have been provided to some of those numerous television appearances
Ansar has been a MAIN guest and expert contributor on a number of BBC and satellite television programs

- on Sunday Morning Live, Ansar is on the show as a main guest introduced by the presenter as he has written a guide on sex education for schools

- on The Big Questions, Ansar debates the leader of the far right in Europe (English Defence League), the first orthodox Muslim to do so on daytime British television

Where citations are insufficient editors are asked to find more information, the response is NOT to delete the article.
If necessary, additional articles should be written to support the notability so long as appropriate.
It is clear that WP does not support biased or prejudiced actions to reduce the notability and / or delete unreasonably or unfairly (clearly evident in this case)

Enough time has been given to this matter. There is evidence of personalised attacks and unfounded allegations which include the wilful ignoring of evidence which shows that the person meets notability criteria. This article will be returned to active status Avenger786 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Mr Ansar has encouraged his supporters to contribute to this discussion by posting a link on his facebook page. I have deleted the claims that he is a 'lecturer' at Winchester University as there is no reference to Mr Ansar on the University's website. The use of the label 'lecturer' is misleading in this case as it implies academic qualifications. If you have any evidence that Mr Ansar has ever been appointed as a university lecturer then please feel free to re-instate and reference the deleted (contentious) claim. I have deleted the 'creeping sharia' section as again, there is no evidence whatsoever for Mr Ansar's involvement in the issue. None of the references quoted cite Mr Ansar at all. Perhaps the section would be more appropriate on the Tommy Robinson page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliviaCunningham (talk • contribs) 08:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please OliviaCunningham stop vandalising the article, especially whilst it is under review and discussion. Mr Ansar says himself he is visiting lecturer at the University and he regularly Tweets when he is going in to deliver his lectures. Visiting lecturers are not always listed on the website. Either we can ask him for a confirmatory email or we need some other evidence - you should elucidate clearly what evidence you would like to support the stipulation. As per the creeping sharia matter, that was added by the originator of this article kencf0618 who has stated that it was Ansar and Robinson's television debate and subsequent exchanges which lead to the meme.

This discussion would benefit from some external involvement, ideally from experience Wiki editors who have not previously been involved in this article - I am therefore making a request for comment

Having done so, I think that we should keep this focused on the absolutely key issue, whether or not Ansar has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria

The problem with this article is that there are no secondary sources about Ansar. Consider the following guidance about sources: "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.[7] Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Similarly, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Wikipedia:N#Self-promotion_and_indiscriminate_publicity

The absence of secondary sources which focus on the subject of this article means that it does not meet the basic notability guidelines.

It also does not meet the additional criteria for a biography ("has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times" or "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" Q1445 (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines have been listed above clearly - they should be considered in the round. We cannot misapply them by disregarding guidelines which are inconvenient. All of these repeated objections have been answered ad nauseam - repeating them again is unhelpful. Primary and secondary sources are not always required or relevant especially when the person is regularly appearing on our television screens as an opinion maker / commentator, the videos ARE primary sources of information. There seems to be a concerted effort to discredit and delete this person's contributions, article and presence on WP. It smells fishy. The objections are clearly non-NPOV. The WP guidelines support categorisation of this person as notable and despite a lack or primary sources - we have the videos available of him on the BBC in discussion programs as an expert guest. Avenger786 (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avenger. "Mr Ansar says himself he is visiting lecturer at the University and he regularly Tweets when he is going in to deliver his lectures" "As per the creeping sharia matter, that was added by the originator of this article kencf0618 who has stated that it was Ansar and Robinson's television debate and subsequent exchanges which lead to the meme" Please stop accusing people of vandalism, bias and Islamophobia and discuss the article and its references instead. The two statements you have made above are hearsay and are not independent references. Please provide a reliable independent reference that the above issues are true or delete the claims. The statement about being a universtiy lecturer in particular is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliviaCunningham (talk • contribs) 10:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is inadequate evidence that Ansar is independently believed to be a significant figure - and I believe the key evidence for this is the absence of secondary material about him. The only sources adduced so far have been primary sources which show that Ansar has contributed to a number of media programmes - of varying levels of significance and with varying levels of prominence himself. Avenger786 maintains that this itself is evidence of Ansar's notability. However, it should be noted that this is the opinion of said user, and that there is no independent corroboration of this. I do not believe that this concern has been answered at any point in the extensive discussions above.

This is clearly going nowhere fast. The question of whether or not Mohammed Ansar is a notable enough figure to merit an article in Wikipedia is chiefly being debated by Avenger786 and myself (albeit with limited input from a couple of others) and therefore I suggest this would be an appropriate time to use the third opinion process (Wikipedia:Third_opinion). Is this an acceptable course of action to those involved?

Q1445 (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of coverage about Ansar in independent reliable sources. Article is a mass of coatracks trying to puff Ansar's claim to notability. Nothing notable here. He might be doing great work but for his community but that doesn't make him notable. A few guest spots on TV does not satisfy WP:ENT. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response - The original author of this article kencf0618 has as an important voice since Wikipedia:Notability requires consultation with him on revision and deletion with his involvement. I have updated the article noting Mr Ansar's appearances in television and in the press this year - of which there have been three notable ones alone this week, as an expert in his field of interest. As a primary contributor to this article, I suggest we look to amend, revise or gather additional information. Deletion is an extreme measure. The article is already half the size it was due to deletions and redactions and virtually all objections have now been addressed (aside from the non NPOV and any personal attacks which are not relevant here). Avenger786 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avenger786 is correct that the article is now much shorter. However, this merely highlights the lack of meaningful content. I have suggested that kencf0618 might want to contribute to this discussion to see if he can highlight any independent, significant, secondary sources which would attest to Ansar's notability. I will also seek input from Wikipedia:BLPN Q1445 (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following the discussion (which has been very interesting given the issues in play), and suffice to say I am satisfied that the criteria for the subject's notability or lack thereof are being duly considered. To date I know of no such sources, so I'm just letting the process play out. kencf0618 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With no reliable, secondary sources in the article that cover the topic in detail, the subject appears to fail the General Notability Guideline. Coverage in independent sources is the main way that we judge notability here. As a relatively common name I had trouble searching for any possible better sources; if some are (concisely) presented I would be happy to reassess my position. VQuakr (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC, WP:TOOSOON, with no disrespect to Ansar's achievements and standing. The above is TL;DR for me. There might exist the possibility to merge content into other articles, e.g. Interfaith dialog#Interfaith organisations, in which case the article should be userfied upon request. -- Trevj (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator; see here. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nandnama[edit]

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

Not notable enough to have an article. No refs.

Apart from unverified claims, this article is poorly written with irrelevant comments (For instance:- Some of the villagers also in very good position in both government and private area. Now new youngster believe to take higher degree like B.Tech, M.Tech, MBA, MCA and working with very reputed organization) The village really exists but there is no need of articles for every village in India. Harsh (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't delete articles just because they are poorly written. Trust me on that one. As for the rest, I'll let someone more knowledgeable on India have that go Яεñ99 (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Yes , I understand that. I earlier read some archives in village pump/policy on notability of villages/places and immediately nominated the article, after which I got a reply on what to do about such articles on my talkpage. So according to WP:NPLACE I've made a poor nomination. Harsh (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2012 (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 deleted under G12 by Paynd. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murari Kumar[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. Not a notable person. Harsh (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article appears to have been lifted from [9]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:00, 7 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dingoman productions[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Sources appear to be YouTube and interviews in local media (i.e., the Houston and Austin metro areas, the two places where the group have lived). Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Kinu ^t/_c 17:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating their work for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: The group only has coverage in local media. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Most of the claims to notability the articles gives are invalid for establishing notability (ie, the number of hits on youtube, information on IMDB, etc), and the only media coverage was in very local news sources. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2012 (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. per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajapaksa family[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place for complete genealogical histories. When the geneaology is removed, we are left with an unabashed paean to the Rajapaksa family, in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article was subject to significant vandalism earlier today by User:Lankanspirit and User:98.200.227.203 who removed a lot of referenced material. I have now reverted it back to my original contribution. As you will see it is not a paean to the Rajapaksa family.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Granted, the present version is better than the nominated version, but the extended genealogy is still not appropriate for Wikipedia. A simple list of the notable members of the family (i.e. those who already have Wikipedia articles) would be preferable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a History section which I hope will allay some of your concerns. I will look to expand this section further. In Sri Lanka the terms "cousin" and "uncle" are used rather loosely which is why I added the family tree to show the exact relationship between the family members. I don't believe a simple list will do that.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Influential family in contemporary politics in Sri Lanka.--Blackknight12 (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven O'Connor[edit]

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

I'm not strongly pressing for deletion of this article, but it is clearly on the edge of notability and I would like to see what consensus is on cases like this. After doing some research I believe there's no point tagging the article for notability concerns, since there is very little to be added that would confirm notability. This is the author of a single published novel, with a limited print run, which not long after publication was pulled even as an ebook apparently because the publisher withdrew from the Young Adult genre. The novel has received two professional reviews, from Booklist and Bookseller+Publisher. These are industry publications; there are no reviews in newspapers, no press interviews with the author, although some publicity does appear in blogs. The author has indicated their future likely lies in self-published ebooks. How close does this come to satisfying WP:AUTHOR? TheGrappler (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether an author is self-published or goes through a publisher (of any size) or whether they issue paper books or only in e-books, they are all subject to the same standards of notability for authors. Being published through a small indie publisher doesn't mean that they can't be notable, neither does being published through e-book only formats. It just makes it less likely that there would be coverage in reliable sources, which blogs are almost never considered to be. The two reviews through Bookslist and Bookseller+Publisher are not enough to give notability to the book or to the author. There just isn't enough coverage of this author and/or his book to show notability enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. Two reviews is far from enough to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the policies in WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2012 (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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Meade[edit]

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

An IP editor, 76.106.164.156 (talk · contribs) tagged this article for deletion and left the following statement on the article talk page: How is this notable for WikiPedia? Appears to be more of an agenda then an Encyclopedic style entry. As the IP editor made a good faith attempt to nominate the article, I am completing the nomination process on their behalf, though I do not think deletion is likely. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a nomination without any policy reasons for deletion, and with no WP:BEFORE check. In fact, the article has multiple references, and more can easily be found, e.g. this one. An oddball, but certainly a notable oddball. The article can probably use some editing, but that's not a matter for AfD. -- 202.124.72.174 (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. --Nouniquenames (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge with Meade Ministries (which needs expansion). As I read it, Meade was the founder of a movement that otehrs regard as a cult. Perhaps, now he is dead, this will wither, but that does not change its value. I have to admit that if this was about a standard church minister, I would probably be for deleting as NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David MacKenzie (programmer)[edit]

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

Seems like he had a part in programming a fairly well known (in some circles) small program but I don't think that he is notable in his own right. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Way below notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No good evidence of notability found in refs or elsewhere. --Kvng (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot suspects[edit]

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

This is a list of persons accused in 2006, many of whom were never convicted of anything. The names of those who were convicted already appear in the article 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. To list the inoocent here is an injustice to them. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the important material is in the main article (there's a bit more here about the freezing of assets but only sourced to a press release). It seems a violation of WP:BLP which warns to be careful about people accused but not convicted of crimes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - still this meets WP:GNG. as long as it meets WP:GNG it shouldnt be deleted.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin the generic vote Above is a spree of 7 keep !votes in 10 minutes by this editor. LibStar (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered in 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signacion Music[edit]

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

Insufficient reliable secondary sources. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 07:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no secondary sources found. --Koui² (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources for this label; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Gongshow ^Talk 18:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how the label can be notable when none of the artists are. SL93 (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ShareKitchen[edit]

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

Unremarkable organization. Page relies on primary sources only. Reads like an advert too. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reading like an advert isn't really a reason to delete as the article can always be rewritten. The subject, however, does not appear sufficiently notable to satisfy WP:GNG. Only two references are provided, one of which is the official site and the other makes no mention of the subject at all. I can't find any additional sources. §everal⇒|Times 17:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an interesting project model, but lacking in sufficient reliable 3rd party sources discussing ShareKitchen itself. It is worth noting the comments by the original contributor on the Talk:ShareKitchen page; however even if all the sources mentioned were verifiably in the article, they would fall below WP:CORPDEPTH, at least for the time being. AllyD (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goecha La: In Search of the Holy Kangchenjunga[edit]

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

Minor travel film that has not shown notability per WP:NFILM. Of sources provided in the article, all are non-independent (such as links to web postings of the video) or unreliable (IMDb), except for the India Express article (a link to which was provided, but that was a copyright violation, so I removed it). I searched the Times of India on June 10, 2012, and could not find the article cited. Further internet searches have not found additional reliable independent sources. Article as a whole seems primarily promotional, produced by users and IPs who have largely only edited this article--and a user, Geoshrad, who has the same name as the distribution company. Michitaro (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i watched it in youtube, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.132.98 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Sources provided are either non-independent or unreliable, and a Google search returned no reliable sources. The purported Times of India article was nowhere to be found. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 07:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2012 (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. Feel free to renominate in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AvoDerm[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement; notability not established. Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to say that this is my first incursion into the gritty dog food underworld, but these two reviews seem to have an strict analysis criteria (not so much for this one), and the brand receives prominent mentions on several books [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Note that GBooks brings up many other results where the actual text is not visible, but the uniqueness of the name would suggest that they do refer to the subject — Frankie (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable, independent sources and therefore, lacking notability. This could be a valuable article, but sources need to added to the article. – MrX 02:57, 10 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Rosario Lindsay[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Magistrate judges simply are not notable by virtue of their position and there is nothing of significance that she has done in office that would grant notability. Nor does her service in the U.S. Attorney's Office grant notability. Delete. Safiel (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; No indication of notability in either her current role as MJ, or in her prior positions with the U.S. Attorney's Office or as an attorney for Suffolk County and the town of Huntington; as a part-time law school instructor; or anywhere else. TJRC (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Lindsay was previously the subject of an AFD here. That AFD, to delete a number of articles on individual magistrate judges, did not reach the merits of the individuals listed, and was closed on a procedural basis: each MJ needed to be considered on his or her merits. TJRC (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability, the de facto notability guideline in effect for judge in the United States, states: "Magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges are appointed by the court of the district in which they sit. Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is evidence of notability that can be established by other strong indicia of notability". No other strong indicia of notability is present in this article. bd2412 T 13:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nandor Vadas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was taken into AfD shortly after its creation several years ago, but the AfD was procedurally closed. Nobody ever bothered to relist this particular individual. Magistrate judges simply are not notable by virtue of their position and there is nothing of significance that he has done in office that would grant notability. None of his other federal positions grant notability. Delete. Safiel (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither his position as magistrate judge nor prosecutor is inherently notable (see prior AfD for basis). There is nothing in the article, or that I can find on my own, to suggest any notability in either of these roles; there are a few news articles where he is mentioned, but only for the purpose of identifying the source of a ruling, etc. He's referred to as the assistant prosecutor in at least one published case, U.S. v. Ailemen, 986 F.Supp. 1228 (N. D. Cal 1997), but it's just a routine identification. Unless anyone is aware of and can document anything special in his career as either MJ or prosecutor, or some other basis, this is just an ordinary guy. TJRC (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability, the de facto notability guideline in effect for judge in the United States, states: "Magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges are appointed by the court of the district in which they sit. Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is evidence of notability that can be established by other strong indicia of notability". No other strong indicia of notability is present in this article. bd2412 T 13:56, 6 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Footle[edit]

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

Although 'footle' is a perfectly good word, this particular meaning seems to be a meaning promoted by the self-published author Brian Strand[16] whose self-published books are being spammed (I think that's the appropriate word) and used in various articles by the creator of this article. See also [17] Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no evidence of notability for this term, looks like an attempt at self promotion.Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't have an article on poetic forms that summarises all the different poetic forms (just a category Category:Poetic form). If we had such an article, this might be included, since it's mentioned in one or more published sources, but I can't see it meriting its own article and I don't see any merge target. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly as the contributor of the page I disagree and have written to Dougweller (talk)separetely accordingly.The 'Footle' is a well established and technically valid poetic form albeit ,short (like for example the couplet or haiku )although the 'evidence' is at the moment mainly in digital ares (but that's where it's at now! (hence Wiki ,google, now ebooks etc etc etc) the name was selected from the dictionary definition as it completely describes this delightful form. .I reject the argument that this page is some form of self promotion or in anyway some form of spamming (again see my response to Dougweller (talk))as it is completely in line with the hundreds of edits and citations etc that I have made on Wiki & Wikiquote over the past six years which were made purely for educational purposes of Wiki readers which I believe conforms with both my publishing endeavours digital and otherwise & moreover Wiki's raison d'etre. Ichthys58 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you misunderstand Wikipedia. We are not here to promote new ideas (and the article more or less says this is a new idea you are promoting, naming you and thus promoting you, whatever your intentions). If it is well-established then I would expect it, like couplets and haiku, to be found in sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS but that simply isn't the case. Being mentioned on the Internet isn't enough. See WP:NOTE. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response

I do not misunderstand Wiki,(I have edited here and made citations,&contributed pages here & on Wikiquote for over six years),the footle is not a 'new' idea.it may well be 'new ' to Wiki hence the page I contributed ; I labelled this for a 'footle' five or six years ago.Clearly Wiki will be left behind if it does not change with the times.If after a week you decide to delete it,its fine by me.Regards Brian Ichthys58 (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious self-publishing self-promoter pushing obscure neologism for vanity purposes. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pick your reason - not notable, at least not yet; can't be found covered significantly in multiple reliable sources; and too new a word to be in this Project. Not really vanity. Perhaps Transwiki to Wiktionary. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIt's already at Wikitionary not surprisingly as it's in the OED - etymology "Probably variant of footer, to screw around, from obsolete fouter, an act of sexual intercourse, from French foutre, to have sexual intercourse, from Latin futuere" and meaning To waste time; to trifle.To talk nonsense. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2012 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suzi Barrett[edit]

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

Non-notable comedian lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The dedicated article in Advertising Age is a major RS verification of notability, even if much of the rest is fluff. Celtechm (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a single one off fluff article hardly qualifies as significant coverage. Still fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 14:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and couldn't find anything to show that this comedienne has received enough coverage to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. The AA article and the G4 nod do help, but they're not enough to show notability enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Other than that, all of the hits were either non-reliable sources, primary hits, junk hits, and routine notices of performances. She's just not notable at this point in time and none of her commercial work is so overwhelmingly notable (like say, Flo from Progressive) that she'd get an article based on that. Neither does she have a sizable enough fan following to where that would make her notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2012 (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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad al Muqtadir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, only reference brings up a 404 error. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 14:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG per [18], [19], [20]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:46, 4 September 2012 (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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 20:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love Kill Kill[edit]

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

Non-notable low budget film with no supporting references. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A brief internet search has found a few references. First, it was part of the Eros Bancho series produced by the arthouse Eurospace, so it is different from your normal low budget film (the first film in that series, Zeze Takahisa's Yuda, was voted the best film of the year by critics in Eiga geijutsu). The film thus showed at a number of European film festivals, including ones at Hamburg, Rotterdam and Frankfurt (at Nippon Connection). Kinema junpo, the main movie magazine in Japan, published both an director interview and film review in September 2004 (I added a reference to the first). This is a start. Michitaro (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why but the Google search gave a completely empty result yesterday and today I see the film trailer on YouTube and other search results. This might have been a bug in Google. JoshuSasori (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 14:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Unless I'm missing something due to language issues, I can't seem to find that many references. However, the fact that it was included in a number of notable film festivals, as well as being voted a "best film of the year", should just barely be enough to establish notability. Of course, additional sources are welcomed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ if someone recognizable like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anand_Bhatt_(musician) doesn't qualify then this film DEFINITELY does not qualify as WP:NOTABLE Wikijustice2013 (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT here, please disregard this vote, closing admin. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ignore Wikijustice2013. They are just copy/pasting the same comment in every AfD. Also, I believe Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 are sockupuppets; see the Afd for Anand Bhatt, where 99.99.174.248 voted about 20 times and was warned by admin Mr. Stradivarious. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 have been blocked by Postdlf for sockpuppetry and retaliatory AfD postings.[21][22]. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ravil_Akmaev[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ravil Akmaev

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

Only one notable source and the rest are non-reliable, from what I can tell. The article in Ukrainian is a duplicate of this, so nothing special there. An English Google of him brings up very little in the realm of fine art notability. SarahStierch (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 14:37, 4 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Fanous[edit]

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

Non-notable autobiography. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 11:37, 5 September 2012 (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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iblees Ki Majlis-e-Shura[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Iblees Kii Majlish Shura

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

Fails WP:GNG Facts, not fiction (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very obviously satisfies notability as per the depth of results shown here [23]. Keep per WP:GNG. Mar4d (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: All the works of Muhammad Iqbal are notable (and you will pretty much know the reason if you read his articles).. it's a waste of time nominating them. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search does not fulfill the requirements of GNG, how many of those sources discuss this in-depth? First few sources in that GB search[24] Wikipedia copy & paste. [25] Just a mention of the name of the poem. [26] Quotes a section of the poem, but gives no details at all. And a correct search[27] returns only eight hits. This poem is not notable at all. Facts, not fiction (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a notable poem which has received significant coverage in a number of sources. Some of the sources are: 1, 2, 3. (Page40-41), 4. (Page 24), 5. (Page 269), 6. (Page 52- ), 7. (Page 148), 8. (Page 159). There are many more sources available online. I have added this article to my to do list and will improve it with these sources soon. --SMS ^Talk 22:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was nominated for AfD less than a year ago in which the overwhelming consensus was keep. Mar4d (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very obviously notable as outlined above. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2012 (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 Withdrawn by nom per all the speedy keeps. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Iqbal bibliography[edit]

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

Article already exists as a section on Muhammad Iqbal. This is redundant. Facts, not fiction (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you notice this is quite a bit bigger than that section? It's a WP:SPLIT from the main article. Unless you have something else, this is a WP:SPEEDYKEEP, 2e (clearly erroneous). postdlf (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I agree with User:Postdlf, the article is far more detailed than the section. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:PRESERVE as a reasonable WP:SPINOFF of the Muhammad Iqbal article. Afterward, perhaps the information can be merged into the main article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Seems fairly standard to maintain a list of works by a notable writer and poet. --regentspark (comment) 18:24, 4 September 2012 (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 both. As discussed below, they are redundant forks of the main articles about the cities. Der yck C. 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City rankings of Detroit[edit]

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

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

These two articles are magnets for random factoids and trivia. They are indiscriminate lists and are hard to maintain. It's interesting to note that two of the three rankings for Detroit are not exactly about Detroit since one is about Hamtramck and one is about Metro Detroit. This shows that the criterion for inclusion in the list is somewhat arbitrary. The case of Seoul also shows fundamental problems with the concept. For instance, it lists Seoul as the 11th largest city proper in the world and as the first largest city proper in the OECD. While the first is of interest, the second is really choosing to re-rank cities from an arbitrary subset. (I mean that it's also true that Seoul is the largest city proper in the Korean Peninsula, the largest city proper in its time zone, the largest city proper in ASEAN.) Pichpich (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or merge applicable content to the city pages. We don't need parallel trivia repositories like this for each city on the planet. Carrite (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can agree that the in the OECD classification is a bit weak, but these articles are stubs just getting started, and there are plenty of relevant facts that we can back up with reliable sources. Since we always need reliable citations, you're not going to find an article for Bumblefucknowhere ranking it as the 371297394th largest city in the world because there is no reliable source for that kind of truly trivial trivia on non-notable places. The Hamtramck datum we can remove too if you want since it is not about the entire city, but data like GDP per capita and total population in the city proper are relevant facts that I personally wanted to know: that's why I created the article. And I've never been to Detroit, so I don't have any kind of city pride invested in this; I just wanted to know the facts. If an editor adds random irrelevant factoids, we can just remove 'em via wiki consensus. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 15:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But note that GDP per capita, population (with rank in the US) and density already appear in the city's infobox. Pichpich (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—any applicable content should be in the main article already. Given the simplicity of the content, at least in the Detroit case, it would not be necessary to retain the article as a redirect for attribution purposes. Imzadi 1979 → 23:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- A simple case of WP:IINFO. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:20, 6 September 2012 (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 On the Leyline. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Just Got Over You[edit]

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

This was a song by Ocean Colour Scene, but unlike their most famous song, The Day We Caught the Train, it did not make the Top 20 - in fact, it did not even make the Top 40. It seems a little known song by this group, and I think that it could safely be deleted. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to On the Leyline, the song's parent album. Plausible search term but does not appear to warrant an independent article, as I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources for the song (WP:GNG, WP:NSONGS). Gongshow ^Talk 14:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to On the Leyline as suggested by Gongshow above. The single reached the low areas of the charts but has not gained significant notice as a stand-alone entity. The fact that it was released as a single, and the chart results, can be mentioned at the album article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:24, 7 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NEStalgia[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)

Delete A game for BYOND, a website which failed to reach Wikipedia notability on it's own merits. Has players within the very low triple digits during peak hours. Games on websites such as Kongregate with tens to hundreds of times the player count lack notability to reach Wikipedia article status, this one appears to lack anything noteworthy and therefore deserves no special treatment. ZeroOneThousand (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — ZeroOneThousand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To clarify, the fact that the game's engine fails to meet Wikipedia notability on it's own merits is not the only reason I believe this game fails to be notable. Every source for the game's notability appears to be an advertisement which can be summarized as "This is an 8-bit game, check it out". The Wikipedia page looks to have been created as an advertisement for the game and add credibility, which has no truly noteworthy coverage elsewhere. The fact that the active playerbase barely breaks double digits only further throws it's notability into question, considering that many larger MMOs do not quality for notability. My concern is that this article was created only to provide enough notability for the game to be seen favorably in the eyes of potential distributors. In my opinion, this article exists to create notability, as opposed to documenting existing notability. ZeroOneThousand (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A game can not be held back by the opinions and notability of it's engine any more than a son can be held back by the success of his father. NEStalgia has more than enough notability and third party sources to be credible and this is nothing more than a personal vendetta against the author. This article has been here for well over a year and it's kind of obvious that it's subject for removal now after the drama contained around the Something Awful community and the game's position on Steam Greenlight. The fact of the matter is that this shouldn't even be a discussion, personal bias towards the game shouldn't effect it's position on wikipedia any more than personal opinions of Hitler preventing him from being taught about in history classes. 142.204.70.21 (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LONGTIME. -The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: notability tentatively established by the third-party sources, but I'm wary, with how close in publishing date the sources are, that they're puff-PR releases. Still, I haven't had the time to look over the sources, so I'll default to "keep" for now. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with ZeroOneThousand, if BYOND doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then it doesn't make sense that NEStalgia would either. A case might be brought up if it manages to be released on Steam, but until then I would say delete. 66.87.106.78 (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — 66.87.106.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Neutral, leaning towards~~ keep "Notability is not inherited" goes both ways. As long as the notability of this game is not predicated on the notability of the website (and the sources show that it's not), the website's lack of notability does not affect the game's notability. That said, I'm unsure whether I would consider this game notable or not; it has multiple articles in the gaming press (such as it is), but the articles basically consist of "It's an 8-bit MMO, try it" with little else of substance, so I'm not sure how significant the coverage is. The article authors appear to be regular editors, not the people who made the game, but I'm not sure how much even that means as far as independence is concerned. If I were forced to choose, I'd probably say "keep why not", but it's very marginal at best. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: with the new sources added, I think that there's enough to avoid deletion. I still don't know how independent the gaming review/news sites really are (I'm a skeptic of the video game industry, I guess), but they are nominally independent at the very least, and the sheer volume is certainly enough. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:15, 5 September 2012 (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) 16:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of BYOND is irrelevant. The article has a couple of decent references - shouldn't be too hard to get more with its popularity. Murrawhip (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are clearly enough references - each saying mostly unique things about NEStalgia. These are notable sources, and verifiable. This was only put up for deletion due to butthurt users and internet drama. The article has existed fine for over a year now, until the game was put up on Steam's Greenlight. Tako (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are now 13 different independent sources from the past 18 months. Most of these are notable, verifiable sources such as PCWorld, Game Informer and Destructoid. The development tools used to create NEStalgia aren't relevant one way or the other: this is a standalone game that does not require the BYOND software in order to play. — Zeldaquest2 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — Zeldaquest2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Over a half-decent external mention that were not self-generated, and there's a whole of a lot less notable, less verified things than NEStalgia on Wikipedia. Seriously, do you really think NEStalgia is on a different tier than, say, Project Zomboid? Frankly, an argument something shouldn't be included because of the relative lack of popularity of the platform in which was created holds about as much water as not including something on Wikipedia because it was written in Sanskrit. If you guys are determined to cite BYOND's article removal as the reason to remove NESTalgia, it seems to me that the mistake was in removing BYOND's article to begin with, as it's about on the same tier as Game Maker. For that matter, go ahead and add an article for Space Station 13 - I'm sure you can dig up enough links to be an external mention about it. (71.193.145.233 (talk)) — 71.193.145.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Holy SPAs, Batman. That aside though, I believe there's clearly enough here to establish sufficient notability for the article to be retained. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel this falls under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam (Advertisement) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided - the page links to his personal blog, his game forum, and his personal site to download the game. Several of the links are even dead. From the sources listed that work, there doesn't seem to be a neutral stance. It honestly feels like self promotion. Biodomes (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Biodomes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The game is reviewed in dedicated articles from multiple mainstream gaming magazines. That alone qualifies it for notability. Contrary to the assertions of some SPAs here, the number of people actually playing it is irrelevant; there could be 0 players and the game would still be notable for attracting sufficient independent press coverage. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content in the sources is a bit flimsy, but receiving that much coverage in mainstream media is enough for notability — Frankie (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger. Whatever individual concerns may exist regarding the independence of journalism in the video games industry, the community generally recognises the majority of the secondary material listed in the article as reliable, namely PC World, Joystiq, Destructoid, Kotaku, The Escapist, Indie Game Magazine, and Game Informer. Mephistophelian (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2012 (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. Let's shut down this circus of socks. T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Duran[edit]

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

At first glance this article looks well referenced but a closer look says otherwise. The same link to Duran's home page looking like multiple references. A bunch of links to imdb. A copy of the wikipedia article hosted by MTV. Allmusic listing with no coverage. A shop. A moviestation.org link that doesn't mention Duran. A movies.yahoo.com link that doesn't mention Duran. Passing mentions on non reliable sources. A Wired page that makes a minor mention of a show but make no mention of Durand. A "celebrity gossip site" paparazzi blog. A fan listing (xmfan) that doesn't mention Duran. Other listings. A site were people upload mixtapes. None good with two possible exceptions. There is two dead links (currently failing verifiability) to AllBusiness.com. Looking at the article titles and the way they are used suggests they are there (like other references) to verify related info and not to provide any coverage of Duran. This article is such a major case of bombardment trying to fake notability that it is almost a hoax article. I found nothing better to use. Delete due to the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I currently have one of the subject's albums at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cursed Since Birth, the same SPA creator is the only keep !vote) and was going to take another look at related articles once that clears AfD. The sourcing on this group of articles is just dreadful. No clear evidence of in-depth independent coverage. No evidence of charting. No evidence of notable awards. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:57, *
Keep (Do Not Delete) - The article has been maintained for six years and now it's time to take down? How about suggesting a way to improve the article then some personal vendetta against this performer. All the Wikipedia editors and people who contributed to this article for six years must be wrong too. How many more references does this need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎JosephDann (talk • contribs)

It's not about the number of references, it's about the quality of them. A single long indepth article entirely devoted to the subject in the Washington Post, LA Times or Moskovskaya Pravda would make pretty much all the notability problems go away. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious attempt at refbombing to puff up the article and make it look like he's all that when really there's almost nothing at all to him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest finding the appropriate links to back up notability and deleting those that don't provide any. The article had been rated decent and ok by wiki standards for 6 years. Now it's open season on this performer for some reason deleting his albums and other projects. Instead of insults like that from TENPOUNDHAMMER and merging, how improving the artice?--JosephDann (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the article with what? We've already said. There are no sources with which the article can be improved. Everything only mentions him in passing or not at all. Sources have to be explicitly about him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have to agree the links for this article are messed up. Dandurand's notability is established below (Please note that a number of Wikipedians have contributed to this article since 2007 with little disagreement until August 2012). He is also known as Jeff Duran and J.J. Star -

In the early 1990s, child actor ^[1] since when is IMDB not reliable?
Dandurand appeared on 'Wonder Years' ^[2]
Jeff has appeared in films, televison shows and hosted successful radio programs. ^[3]
Successful Comedian J.J. Star ^[4]

Please see link to allmusic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.125.74 (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IMDB for the consensus on IMDB. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Allmusic listing is blank — it doesn't have a bio or anything. Being called "successful" is entirely subjective. It's just a peacock word people throw around to make themselves sound like all that. By what merit is his "success" judged? Also, a commercial site like The Comedy Store, whose main purpose is to sell a product, isn't a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this rule in Wikipedia should be enforced here: ...."But Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance. (In extreme cases, a group of editors will agree to remove the verified but false statement, but without adding any original commentary in its place.)" Since the performer uses differen't names there is a confusion here as to what part of his career deserves notability. I have contributed to this article over the years and at one time had a friendship with the performer through my ex. I will continue to find the appropriate sources so we don't lose info this talent. Deleting it makes fellow wikipedians look foolish for enforcing it's importance to begin with, and we know that's not the case. --JosephDann (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)mike[reply]

What makes you think that we're using our own criticisms? We're using the general notability guidelines and saying that he fails them. "Losing info" is not a vaild argument; see WP:LOSE. We do know it's the case, because we've explained to you plain as day that you need reliable, third party sources that talk about him in depth. Also, what the hell made you think "different" has an apostrophe in it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I commented at the corresponding AfD that the subject had been described (on a blog) as PeekYou's "most influential comic on the web" but I haven't managed to find any reliable sources to back even that claim up. As it stands I think the article itself fails WP:GNG. I also have concerns about Belligerence: The Journey of JJ Star (Note: the albums in his Discography link to redirects which link back to Jeff Duran). Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment - Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Wonder Years is a notable show and he appears in two episodes.

2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

The venues this comedian plays like Comedy Store, Whisky are not considered notable but imo prove he is a headliner and deserves mention.Two movies have been made about the subject that are to be released this year. IMDB and a Celebrity News site back this up however are not viewed as significant enough.

3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Having Lady Gaga and others appear on his release is pretty significant.

There are countless Mixtapes that are listed on Wikipedia for some reason are excepted but not a release on Island/Def Jam? One that has Lady Gaga as a featured artist?

The problem AMAZON, Itunes, IMDB and anything that backs this up is not considered notable. My suggestion after I fix the article is the following: Trim some excess fat but don't delete this subject as a notable entertainer.

--JosephDann (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ALL INAPPROPRIATE LINKS AND REFS HAVE BEEN REMOVED. ONLY CONTENT TO BACK UP SUBJECTS NOTABILITY HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED TO PROVIDE DEPTH AND PROOF OF THIS VETERAN PERFORMER.--JosephDann (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One !vote per user. You've already argued your point several times. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer is right - several editors have already asked you to have a read of the various Wikipedia policies that apply to this discussion including WP:N and WP:V as well as WP:IMDB which is still being relied upon as an appropriate reference, which it is not. I thoroughly disagree with your assertion that "all inappropriate links and refs have been removed" given you actually repaired the IMDB ref that other editors have already explained is inappropriate, added references to blogs and also added a reference to "paparazzidaily" which is not only a blog but a blog that only lists the subject's radio show in a general directory, as it does many others. The references provided fail to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Two minor parts as Kid #1 and Boy (uncredited) in single episodes of a >111 epidoe show is not significant roles in multiple television shows, let alone a significant role in a single show. Claiming otherwise is not good for the credibility of one's argument (bolding mine).

2. If it's the same Comedy Store, it is notable but notability is not inherited. Don't know about Whiskey but the same reasoning applies. Nothing there shows "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". Making two movies about yourself says nothing about fan base or following, just about self.

3. Don't know if you've noticed but Lady Gaga has Lady Gaga on her releases. As does Gossip Girl, Saturday Night Live, Double Exposure, American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, etc, etc, so on and so forth. Nothing unique or inovative there.

Not numbered but the question of "release on Island/Def Jam?" is misleading. The cds byrelease on Island/Def Jam? Duran were not released by those record companies, they may be distributed by a distribtion arm of Island/Def Jam but are not releaed by them. AMAZON, Itunes, IMDB do not back your claims up. Trim some excess fat, what are we left with, anything? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side-note - I've re-spaced various comments above with new indents and bullet points for easier reading (and a couple of link fixes). I'm almost certain I didn't change the meaning of any of the contributions but please let me know if you think I have. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this artist seems to be trying a little bit of everything but not reaching Wikipedia's notability standards on any of them. Acting roles are not significant here, music and comedy career isn't meeting guidelines either RadioFan (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - At least create a stub on the topic instead of deleting it. The above comments never try and improve the article, they just tear down the subject's credibility. There are refs in this article that include the subject to support notability of this artist. I agree it was a mess but cleaning some of those dead links and refs make it a worthwile read now imo.

Per Wikipedia- The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

The article was improved and now adhears to this.--173.55.125.74 (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — 173.55.125.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment editors cant fix a lack of notability.--RadioFan (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given both User:JosephDann and 173.55.125.74 are basically single purposes accounts focussed on this subject, I can only think they are the same person and so are entitled to one Keep/Delete contribution. I don't believe this is a case of intentional sock-puppeting, rather just a SP new editor who sometimes logs in, sometimes doesn't. I have amended the above to Comment in good faith but am happy for someone else to amend if they disagree. Don't think it's worth opening an SPI for. But to the editor in question, please only vote once. You are welcome to your opinion (though you seem the only one to hold that view) which you have expressed several times. It might be time to let this one go (see WP:DEADHORSE) and contribute elsewhere if you have other areas of interest. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Do Not Delete) Comment - Re-iterate (The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.) Dandurand is a comedic legend and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. This page goes back as far as 2007 and it's only now they say it's not notworthy? I suspect these editors are bringing personal bias into the decision which should not be tolerated! Keep! important radio personality, important child actor and comedian.

--Cocoabrown (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please only vote once. If you continue to register additional usernames for the purpose of voting multiple times then I will open a WP:SPI case. From the top of each AfD when you edit - "using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust". You have made your point several times without adding anything by way of substantive argument as to why the article should be kept. Please leave it at that. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors may be interested in this exchange. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I was aware of that AfD, that particular SPI escaped my attention (not sure how - maybe I saw it and didn't really make the connection - I must be losing it!). Given the previous warnings and obvious intention to continue ignoring guidelines, would you like to add the above username and IP to that SPI or start a new one? Stalwart111 (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all refs and links point are acceptable.--Gonetroppo (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What!?! Another SPA with an interest in nothing but this particular subject? Who would have thought? And with exactly the same inability to format consistently... I'm shocked! C'mon mate, this is just getting silly. I'm going to ask an admin to delete and close. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gonetroppo has been indef'd as a sock of JosephDann. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Request for close was made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As indicated in the nom, no deep coverage in 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Alternative medicine. This has been quite a wide-ranging discussion, so let me see if I can break it down. In terms of pure numbers, I counted 5 keeps, 3 merges, 4 redirects, 2 redirect/deletes, and 3 deletes. The "keeps" mostly pointed to the availability of sources on the subject, which do seem to be numerous and independent of each other. Two of the "deletes" argued that the term was a neologism, but I found this argument less persuasive as the secondary sources pointed out by the "keeps" discuss the term itself in detail. (From WP:NOTNEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.")

Of most importance to finding consensus, however, were the arguments about whether whole medical systems constitutes a distinct subject to alternative medicine or not. Opinions ran the gamut from considering the two subjects as completely separate, to treating whole medical systems and alternative medicine as fully synonymous terms. This was not an easy decision to make due to the variety of opinions, but when weighing the arguments up, a selective merge/redirect to alternative medicine seemed to have slightly more support than the other positions, and to be a good compromise between the "keeps" and the "deletes". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whole medical systems[edit]

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

From what I can see this is a neologism with only minor usage. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The term is used relatively frequently to distinguish comprehensive and coherent systems that include both a systematic theoretical foundation and therapeutic practices addressing a broad range of medical situations, from "niche" medical approaches that are generally lumped together under alternative medicine. There is no other term that describes this. The article should not (and I think presently is not) be a mere dictionary definition, of course. The NIH and Merck Manual both employ the term hgilbert (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NIH through NCCAM employ it, because they invented it. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FDA also has adopted the term, suggesting it was an adaptation by NCCAM from the previous alternative medical system.

It appears that there is a distinction consistently being made between alternative medicine in general, and whole systems of medicine, and that the contemporary terminology is now whole medical system. The history of the term alternative medical system would also be interesting to trace.hgilbert (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cathchbag neologism with usage limited to a single US government agency and a few fringe proponents, and with no real encyclopedic utility. Essentially synonymous with Alternative medicine, which means that this article is merely a content (and probably POV) fork of that article. The material included here is already included there. There really isn't anything to merge. Can be deleted in its entirety and redirected. Despite cries of WP:GHITS and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, there is no justification for duplicate articles on one subject under different names. We don't have a seperate article on Eggplant and Aubergine, for example, as the subject matter is the same. The same here. There is nothing that can be added to this article that would not fit in the article on Alternative medicine, and any material can be better presented within the context of that article.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (i.e. delete). This is a term that NCCAM seem to be trying to coin, and the alties do have some success in coining new names for old bullshit, this does not yet appear to have significant traction (probably because at least some of the purported "whole medical systems" conspicuously fail the test of being medical systems. The article appears to have been created in order to promote anthroposophical medicine, which is not even defined as a whole medical system by NCCAM. This looks very much like POV-forking of alternative medicine, very much as the coiners of the term intend, in fact. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously not a neologism as the words of this phrase are long-standing and fairly plain English (unlike much medical jargon). The phrase is used in hundreds of books, as one can readily see from the search link above. The nomination is therefore not evidence-based. Warden (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long standing? Show me a book from 50 years ago using this term, 40 years? 30 years? 20 years? No? That would be because the term was invented by National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine [28] (the book which only gives 2 sentences about "Whole medical systems" generally, so not significant coverage). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to find earlier usage such as the Encyclopædia Britannica of 1903, "There is a very strong belief in the existence of evil spirits, and all kinds of calamities and diseases are ascribed to their malignity. Thus almost the whole medical system of the Dyaks consists in the application of ...". Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, that is just the normal usage of those words, it's not referring to "whole medical system" as a concept here. It's referring to the entire "medical system of the Dyaks". IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same concept. This is not some complex or novel jargon. The phrase just means a comprehensive system of medicine - one which covers all types of ailment, not just a specialism. The Dyaks' system of spirit-based medicine was such a system and that was much the same conceptually as the other examples given here, like Chinese medicine grounded in the idea of chi, rather than spirits. Warden (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alternative medicine. Does not appear to be anything other than a synonymous term. a13ean (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative medicine is a different structural concept. By definition, it means a competing or co-existing system of medicine. A whole system of medicine is one which is comprehensive and so self-sufficient — it can stand by itself. Warden (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that it competes/contrasts with? Zujua (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ~~Leaving aside the comment of Guy 14:47, 4 September 2012 which seems to suffer from a compulsive animus inconsistent with reasoning (doubtless in good faith), then Qexigator,~~ attempting to speak for the ordinary reader looking for information reasonably free from "pov", ~~would see a redirect sufficient, provided the article allows mention of the expression "Whole medical systems".Qexigator (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC) But~~ and on further consideration of 1_Warden's comment (14:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC) ) about different structural concept, and 2_Questions about -whether "regular" medicine is not also describable as a whole medical system (see "Clarification" below) and -whether Anthroposophic/al medicine is better described as an extension of what is known as "regular", merger with Alternative Medicine would probably do more to confuse than clarify. Therefore keep provided that it is explained why there is a continuing denial (if it is so) on the part of professional, academic or official bodies that "regular" medicine is within the descriptor "whole medical system"; and "Whole medical systems" is demonstrably not a neologism, as proposed at top in the lead for this discussion. This paragraph is revised on change from merge to keep: Qexigator (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean an animus to bogus "medical systems" incompatible with reason, but I understood. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - dozens of books that use this term doesn't seem "only minor usage". Scholarly articles that go back to 1973 (actually 1970) and 1980, and a book from 1984 -- that's about 40 years ago -- don't seem to support the idea that this was a term "coined by NCCAM". Finally, this term seems to be gaining considerable notability since about 2003 and thus deserves an article. Perhaps this nomination was a bit hasty? Perhaps we should add references to a dozen scholarly articles and a dozen books that have used the term, as supporting evidence of the notability of the term. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a quote of it's usage in the article in 1973. It seems inconsistent with the reliable sources that says it was coined by NCCAM. Perhaps you are looking at a grouping of the words; i.e same as "the entire medical systems".IRWolfie- (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled; what reliable source says it was coined by NCCAM? I missed this. hgilbert (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This source [29] introduces the term by saying it is an NCCAM classification. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is ambiguous; I suggest we drop the claim that the term was "coined by" NCCAM, which is not what this source says at all. It is certainly a classification used by NCCAM. And it appears that it may well predate the NCCAM usage. hgilbert (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These sources from the 70s and 80s are talking about medical systems. You can do your own research here with the links I've given. The Kleinman paper (1973) "Medicine's symbolic reality: On a central problem in the philosophy of medicine" in Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy deals with:

Comparative studies of medical systems offer a general model for medicine as a human science. These studies document that medicine, from an historical and cross‐cultural perspective, is constituted as a cultural system in which symbolic meanings take an active part in disease formation, the classification and cognitive management of illness, and in therapy.

In particular, these systems are termed whole medical systems here, referring to a 1970 paper by Alland which in turn refers to work done in 1967:

Alland (1970) attempts to compare whole medical systems in his evolutionary framework. General comparisons of Asian, African and Western medical systems are found in: Robin Horton, 'African Traditional Thought and Western Science. I', Africa, Vol. 37 (1967),...

This usage is consonant with the definition given in the WP article "Whole medical systems are coherent systems of medical theory and medical practice that have been developed independently of, or parallel to, conventional Western medicine." (emphasis added). Examples given in the article (TCM, Ayurveda) are both among "Asian and African medical systems" mentioned in this paper. This paper takes the meaning of whole medical systems to include the Western medical system.

The particular emphasis of the contrast with the Western medical system is implicit in these papers and was probably given explicit emphasis later by NCCAM. Nonetheless, scholarly comparative study of medical systems as a whole was undertaken long before NCCAM came into existence and today has broad coverage in hundreds of scholarly papers and books. --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it agreed that there is a substantive issue which cannot be reduced to the question of "grouping of the words"? Thus, following up the references in EPadmirateur's comment of 05:36, 5 September 2012: to a non-specialist ordinary reader the usage "pseudo-" appears to be designed and intended to be loaded and prejudicial. If there is a controversy among medics (and patients) concerning allopathic v. homeopathic [30] then, seeing that the theory and practice of both inevitably have limitations and insufficiencies (and maybe deficiencies of one kind or another), surely npov should not proceed to treat one of them as "pseudo-" this or that merely because its limitations and deficiencies differ from the other's. But any genuinely informative and non-partisan article (or part of an article) on "Whole medical systems" needs to make clear that there are a variety of such systems (including allopathic?), some of ancient origin and some, such as homeopathic and anthroposophic, more recent. Surely, Wikipedia is not to be seen as serving or siding with an allegedly partisan body such as AMA (see ref. above)? Qexigator (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but what are you talking about and what does it have to do with the AfD? Calling the American Medical Association partisan and your use of pejoratives for mainstream medicine are unlikely to garner much sympathy with the closing admin. Wikipedia isn't here to pretend your fringe beliefs and mainstream science and medicine as on an equal footing. Wikipedia represents things neutrally by WP:WEIGHT. It is NPOV that makes us describe pseudoscience as pseudoscience; the most reliable sources call it pseudoscience. The weight of sources is firmly with mainstream (self-evidently because it's the mainstream) science and medicine rather than pseudoscience. I suggest you read the requirements of WP:AFDFORMAT. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry or not, Wolfie, your remarks are objectionable: 1_ "...what are you talking about and what does it have to do with the AfD?" AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements...etc. Quite so. Please do not respond and distort in a partisan manner as if the point of the comment was not clear. 2_Look again, my comment was not calling the AMA partisan. Why take instant umbrage? 3_"...your use of pejoratives for mainstream medicine". False imputation upon my comment. 4_"...unlikely to garner much sympathy with the closing admin. Wikipedia". Is that meant as a threat to warn off something to which you have no better answer? 5_ "It is NPOV that makes us describe pseudoscience as pseudoscience; the most reliable sources call it pseudoscience. The weight of sources is firmly with mainstream (self-evidently because it's the mainstream) science and medicine rather than pseudoscience." Previously noted and acknowledged. Qexigator (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Qexigator expected that it would be understood that use of the term "allopathic" above (22:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)) was for the purpose of the context, not for the purpose of persiflage implying that the sort of medical practice to which it has been applied (as described in Allopathic medicine) is to be treated in general as bogus (or pseudo-), although it may also be noted that the use of the term "Quackery" antedates homeopathy. Qexigator does not propose to enter into the finer points, but in the capacity of an ordinary reader looking for candid information would ask that one of the results of the present discussion will be a clear statement in an article about why practitioners of what is sometimes called "regular" medicine, of the kind approved by the AMA and similar professional bodies, would oppose this being considered as a "whole system". In this connection, it is noteworthy that: 1_ Merriam-Webster offers two definitions for allopathy [31], 2_ allopathy is used in the timeline at [32], 3_MedicineNet accomodates reference to alllopathy, homeopathy, conventional medicine and so on [33], [34]. --Qexigator (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect...to Alternative medicine. I don't see much distinction between the two terms. SteveBaker (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Alternative medicine is a mishmash of anything and everything that someone considers to be a therapy. Like someone I know who has developed her own therapy for using flowers to treat disease. As the sources reveal, whole medical systems are typically traditional, comprehensive systems that have evolved over a long period of time, even thousands of years. And some are now increasingly evidence-based. It would be nice to see this article retained and developed. TimidGuy (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are policy based arguments. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Merge: "Merging should be avoided if...the topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short" hgilbert (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The neologism isn't clearly a discrete subject and overlaps with alternative medicine. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to alternative medicine which is the same subject (see initial citation to this article) and a much better article. Junjunone (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hgilbert has started canvassing on other article talk pages: [35][36][37][38]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry? Canvassing only applies to user talk pages. Notifications of an AfD on related articles' talk pages is not unusual in my experience. It is neutral, as editors of many opinions may be editing any given article. hgilbert (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest looking at WP:CANVASS which does not limit it's scope to user talk pages. If you want to a central location for fringe theories try a wikiproject of which the article is within the scope of. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I read there " it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." and appropriate places include "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion." and "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Though related articles are not explicitly mentioned, clearly this would fall within this scope. I purposely did not select out editors who were of one opinion or another. I think you'll find my notification was neutral in tone, as well. Indeed, it violated none of the criteria listed in WP:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. hgilbert (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alternative medicine or Delete The reason to redirect would be - it is not giving any new information. It is the old wine in the new bottle. Or even we are only trying change the label of the bottle. In this process we are forgetting that the contents remains the same! So there is no point in plying with words and hence redirect. But if people are unhappy with the new name, then you can delete as well. One more thing I would like to bring to notice to the people who are supporting it, that a science become popular by hard wok in the field of research and not by merely changing the name. Testing theories, asking questions, facing facts and striving for truth is easier said than done. Hence some people choose easier way to popularize a thing. But I would like to tell them that this is not the proper way and going by scientific way is easier indeed. I am an Ayurvedic Physician myself and do feel that what is needed in Ayurveda is hardcore evidence and not opinions. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alternative medicine or *Delete old wine in a new bottle indeed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Redirect to Alternative medicine, preferably with an improved explanation of the term in the Classifications section. Alternatively, would it perhaps be appropriate to have some sort of disambiguation page providing a brief referenced definition and links to Alternative medical systems and Traditional medicine? —MistyMorn (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect Sources like this one make clear that Whole Medical Systems (capitalized to represent the concept discussed, in contrast to some of the uses cited above which are clearly just those words in that particular order and not a discrete idea) are a subset of alternative medicine and that the term is confusingly vague (lacking "conceptual clarity"). The best way forward, in my opinion, would be to have a discussion in the alternative medicine article of some of the attempted subclassifications of CAM's enormous umbrella. What's clear from the medical literature I've perused is that the terminology is not heavily used, in part because of its fuzzy nature and numerous near-synonyms. I'd suggest, though, that alternative medicine could benefit from a succinct breakdown of general categories, leading to linked articles on individual modalities, like that found in this paper based upon NCCAM and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration classifications:
Biologically-based practices (including dietary supplements, botanicals, animal-derived extracts, vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, amino acids, proteins, probiotics, whole diets and functional foods).
Energy medicine (including visible light, magnetism, laser beams, other electromagnetic forces, and biofields such as ki, doshas, prana, atheric energy, and mana)
Manipulative and body-based practices (including chiropractic manipulation, osteopathic manipulation, massage therapy, reflexology, Bowen technique, Alexander technique)
Mind-body medicine (relaxation, hypnosis, visual imagery, meditation, yoga, biofeedback, qi gong, cognitive behavioural therapies and spirituality)
Whole medical systems (including traditional Chinese medicine, ayurvedic medicine, naturopathy, homeopathy, and acupuncture).
The reader would benefit most, in my opinion, if a search for "whole medical system" took her/him to the alternative medicine page directly where the term's fuzzy boundaries in relation to other CAM can be fully explored directly against other subclassifications. — Scientizzle 14:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a catchall to create another article for alt med (or CAM). There are enough CAM articles that barely get read or edited that probably should be merged anyways into the main article. It's amusing that CAM continues to try to reinvent itself, taking the word "medicine" whenever it wants to establish itself as kind of a science. Still, we should allow it if it's notable. This isn't really notable. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alternative medicine. Seriously, what's the difference? --Mallexikon (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is not a rhetorical question, I'll note the answer I gave above: alternative medicine is any therapy someone thinks might heal something, such as the person I know who treats people with the use of flowers. As the sources reveal, whole medical systems are typically traditional, comprehensive systems of theory and practice that have evolved over a long period of time, even thousands of years. TimidGuy (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is "Whole medical systems" is a neologism alternative medicine excluding guys who don't have a "theory"; if you really add a sentence about this new term by the NCCAM into Alt Med. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge (i.e. the etymology bit) to alternative medicine, per WP:NOTNEO. -- Trevj (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as G4 and A10. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somerled the Viking Slayer[edit]

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

Clear POV fork of Somerled after someone appears to have lost a discussion. forked from [39]. No copyright attribution given to the older version either. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion, however this article refers to Somerled the Viking Slayer not Somerled the Viking and is a discussion of the traditional documented lineage of Somerled not a fringe argument that Somerled is a Viking. All material on this page is my original work which has been cited and therefore does not need a copyright attribution to a previous page. Deletion of this article in preference to a racially biased and contentious fringe argument that Somerled is a Viking is unconstructive. All of this work is original and is not a POV fork but based on established genealogies of Somerled and traditional lineages extensively documented by reputable sources not pop science and false premises.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moidart (talk • contribs) 12:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this page may serve to distract Moidart from Somerled but it could also confuse uninvolved and unwary users of Wikipedia. (If there is clear evidence of well established "clan traditions" relating to Somerled, I would not object to their appearance in a brief and clearly defined paragraph somewhere in his article.) 45ossington (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unacceptable POV fork of Somerled. Both articles are about the same person, although this is not made clear to reader. The only difference is that the creator of Somerled the Viking Slayer, wishes categorically to refute suggestions that Somerled may have had Norse ancestors. The way forward is to reach a consensus at Somerled on how to treat the genetic studies, the linguistic evidence concerning the Norse origins of the subject's name and those of his descendants, and "clan traditions" in a balanced and neutral way. But it should certainly not involve the blatant use of synthesis found here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as POV fork. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as duplicate of existing article. Plainly about the same chap - even copy/pasta'd some of the content. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as POV fork. To suggest that the articles are about two different people does not help. Note: the article was deleted by Elen of the Roads[40] and then restored by Moidart. Please block Moidart. Mathsci (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Abdallah[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Lack of secondary sourcing and critical commentary. The publisher, VDM Publishing, is no more credible than self-publish vanity presses. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absence of independent reliable sources to establish that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. AllyD (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. His publisher is a vanity press and the title of his "book" isn't even grammatical. Qworty (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2012 (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. Nominator moved to "neutral" position, no formal support by others for deletion, consensus to keep, per WP:BASIC, WP:HEY and Scholarlyarticles's contributions. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Henchman[edit]

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

Searching for anything on this person simply shows that he is a lowlife, violent, minor criminal with delusions of grandeur. The article has many citations, all in reliable sources. I added one myself. But he is 'notable' for simply being a petty criminal. One Incident does not confer notability. I have searched and found nothing about his business life, let alone anything that makes him notable. He is associated with musicians stated to be notable, but notability is not inherited. I once met a celebrity, but notable I am not. Nor is he. Fails WP:GNG by a considerable margin. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too am struggling to see how he would be eligible for inclusion, based on the available mentions in the sources. It's nothing but a GNG-thing, baaaby. pablo 13:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How should the eventual closer of this discussion interpret your thoughts, please. I feel you are agreeing with and arguing for delete, but don't want to put words into your mouth Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a binary choice though Tim, as you know. And these discussions do go on for a week or so. I'll think some more on it; Itemirus has a suggestion below, I'm thinking a straight redirect might be better as a few mentions and a lot of hearsay and rumour is admittedly a poor basis to construct a BLP. pablo 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose either a well performed simple merge, or a straight redirect. The area is BLP minefield. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Czar Entertainment - some notability can indeed be established. --Itemirus (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any merge would require extreme care in order to keep undue weight on the criminal activity of Henchman/Rosemond clear of the article. As the Henchman article stands all I can see that could go in is a sentence to state his CEOship (I have not done more than skimmed the Czar article to see that it exists in a decent state, it may be mentioned) and a sentence to state his criminality as a qualifier of the man. I don't oppose merge as an outcome, I simply see it as difficult to achieve well. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well merging is better than deleting; a phrase like "he was the CEO of Czar Entertainment, is a convicted drug trafficker and has been involved in the murder of..." will do. I understand your rationale, one incident does not confer notability, but then what should we do of articles like this? Jimmy Henchman appears to be more notable than this guy --Itemirus (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cite has, in my view, no place here either. There is a strong temptation to propose it goes, too. I will resist that for the moment, only because it seems like a suggestion, and I am trying not to be suggestible, but don't let me stop anyone else. I know you are not arguing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but it most assuredly does exist! I wonder about many articles on WIkipedia. But we are, for the present, considering this small time crook. $2.8m as a drugs haul is pretty small beer. I contend that he is a well reported minor crook. The other chap is probably a gullible fool. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henchman's notability is established on 5 counts enumerated below (I've summarized them here and provided the article with references below.) These are correlated with the sheer volume of newspaper articles on the subject. (Please note that a number of Wikipedians have contributed to this article since June 1 or so with little disagreement until August 20 or 21 .

1. In the early 1990s, Rosemond’s Henchman Productions produced hits for such stars as Salt N Pepa. In the late 90s, he changed the name of his company to Czar Entertainment, where he ruled as the titular head of hip-hop’s anti-snitch movement representing many gangsta rap stars, including Game, Shyne, Rick Ross and Gucci Mane, as well as ex-heavyweight champion Mike Tyson.

2. Although he was titular head of raps anti-snitch movement 2010, a NY daily news article by Alison Gendar shocked the hip hop world when it revealed that Henchman, head of the hip hop anti-snitch movement, was himself a federal informant (see current article with references below).

3. Henchman is the subject of the music world's biggest drug bust: On June 5, 2012, he was convicted of drug trafficking, obstruction of justice, firearms violations and other financial crimes associated with his being the head of a multi-million dollar transnational cocaine selling organization.[2].

4. Murder indictment: In February 2012, Henchman was arrested for the murder-for-hire of Lodi Mack, an associate of rapper 50 Cent. He is behind bars, awaiting sentence on 13 counts of crack slinging, money laundering and obstruction of justice. He will soon face trial for conspiracy to commit murder references below.

5.Assault at the Quad: Henchman was widely believed to be the mastermind behind the attack at the Quad, both by Tupac himself and by Pulitzer-prinze winning journalist Chuck Philips. Although Philips 2008 controversial article (Court case exhibit: USA vs James Rosemond Case # 1:11-Cr-00424 5/14/2012 Document # 100, exhibit 1) was retracted in 2008 when Henchman threatened the LA Times with a lawsuit (because they and Philips had mistakenly included court-filed documents 302s which turned out to be forged) It was thought to be vindicated when Dexter Isaac confessed to attacking Tupac on Henchman's orders. About a year later, a prosecutor revealed at trial that Henchman confessed to involvement in the attack in one of 9 Queen for a day proffer sessions. In this connection, Jimmy Henchman was mentioned by name in a famous song called against all odds. He rapped ". Jimmy Henchman,...[You] Set me up, wet me up,...stuck me up....Heard the guns bust but you tricks never shut me up."

—Tupac Shakur, Against All Odds" Please note that all those who have written the original article as well as hip hop fans across the world would object to such a deletion.

Here is the article as it stands on September 4th I think is a fair representation of the situation and also includes the references. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have not deleted the pasted text from the original article in my edit just now. Instead I have used the permalink to what I honestly believe to be the version pasted in, and given my rationale for doing this on the talk page here. I wanted to be sure the swathe of text did not detract form the arguments given. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your item (1) above is approriate to the corporation, not the man, and should be discounted in this discussion. Adding the information to the corporation's article is a useful action. (2) may have merit, but requires explanation, not only here, but citation in the article. (3) is part of the WP:BLP1E issues I see about the article as a whole. "Street values" of drugs are figures that tend to be massaged by enforcement agencies to look enormous. $2.8m is not as large as it might appear to the reader of media. (4) is an area where one must be very careful. My view is that he may become notable on conviction, moving us away form BLP!E, but that he is currently innocent until proven guilty. This is congruent with Wikipedia's policies. (5) is complex, too. My view is that wide belief is not an appropriate thing to have in an article. Such things are in danger of being considered libels and our general policy is immediate removal to remove the danger. Finally, though I appreciate your point about hip hop fans and others who have contributed to the article, we may not second guess their opinions. Wikipedia works by participation. They are all welcome to place their own opinions here, in this discussion, but we may not take your word for those opinions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiddle Faddle. I think perhaps you misunderstand - He WAS proven guilty. He was convicted on 13 counts including drug trafficking, obstruction of justice and other related counts. He is in prison facing life on those charges alone. He is also going to be tried for the murder of Lodi Mack as well. Finally, his involvement in the attack at the Quad is legendary and the corroborative confession by Issac and the June revelation of prosecutors is of great interest and has been written about widely. The ambush at the Quad was classified as a robbery and the statute of limitations has passed and no one will be tried for that. I added the articles corroborating the theory as they appeared in late June of this year. Henchman's involvement was mentioned in Tupac's famous rap "Against all Odds." Therefore it is of interest to rap fans. Failure to include it in any article about Henchman would be a serious omission. I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss this but I think it would be of great help if those editing the article on Jimmy Henchman or on anyone for that matter, actually read all the source materials before they do so. In this case, this would include the PACER citation, the AHH cite, the dxhiphop.com cites, the VV, the HuffPo articles, Jennifer Evans article for KTLA..com as well as the dxhiphop articles and the AP cites. This would seem to give one more authority in the matter than simply googling Jimmy Henchman and trying to get an impression of his importance. A depth of understanding about the content area in which one is editing seems critical, unless it's a matter of grammar or style. A lot of people worked on this. Too many articles besides this were obliterated on that fateful August 20-21 spree. Many individuals besides me whose work had stood for months and, in some cases, years had their work erased simply because I had worked on the article. In many instances, I cannot recover their work because it had the stamp of their expertise. This is unfortunate. I don't think the problem should be compounded by preventing Wikipedians from repairing their little contributions. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the gentleman is guilty. He is guilty. With the point where he is currently inocent, you stated He will soon face trial for conspiracy to commit murder references below. That is the area of concern. The issue is whether he is notable, sufficiently notable, to have an article here. I believe he is not. You believe he is. Each of those beliefs are fine, and we are submitting to consensus to find out if one or the other of us is correct. With regard to other editors, each has the same rights as any other editor here. They can and should contribute to discussions such as this one. I believe I have notified in the correct neutral manner each significant editor to this article. If I have missed any out please use the appropriate template on their talk pages, but absolutely do not canvass their !vote one way or the other. If any articles have been deleted 'because you worked on them' that is likely to be grossly unfair, and a Deletion Review can and should be requested by you or by any other editor. I am afraid no-one has to show any expertise in any topic here before editing an article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm always curious as to why we are so paranoid when it comes to BLPs of notorious persons. This is clearly not a BLP1E, there are multiple instances of criminality, it is the largest case of it's type in the music industry, and relates to a number of other articles. While being cautious with BLPs is wise, being overly so borders on censorship and isn't something I will support, and forces me to jump in here. The sources are rock solid and the individual passes GNG. Anything else is a matter of editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's mentioned and interviewed in several MTV interviews and allegedly responsible for an attack on TuPac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs)

As nominator I have moved my position. While I am not currently considering withdrawing the nomination, I now wish to be classed as Neutral. I may yet be persuaded to move from this neutral position. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think one source of confusion is that FF misunderstands the import of the drug bust. I tried to determine how Fiddle Faddle arrived at the of 2.8 million dollar number he mentioned supra. I think he is perhaps confusing the amount confiscated at the bust as reported by the NY times with the amount Henchman was convicted of trafficking (as little as 10 million since 2007 according to the NY Times, to much more than that per year according to other sources). These had nothing to do with his conviction on associated firearms charges and obstruction charges. Because there still is some confusion about what Jimmy Henchman is notable for, I have included 2 references from God's own newspaper - The New York Times - with direct quotes from the paper not only as to his notoriety but as to the source of his main interest to the public. I've added the references in this short paragraph but I refer all to the Jimmy Henchman article as it stands today on September 8th at 447 Eastern time.. I'll give a couple key quotes here from the New York Times I've included. He is a legend in the hip hip world, having been referred to by the New York Times as "a prince at the royal court, whose ties to rap music’s biggest stars were known far and wide." [3]. b.) But it was not his role as a federal informant or even his drug conviction that made him notorious in the rap world, but his long rumored involvement in the attack that set off the east coast West Coast rap wars [10]. As the New York Times said "For years, he has denied allegations that he was involved in a feud that led to the murders of the rappers Tupac Shakur and Christopher Wallace, known as Biggie Smalls."[10] Two new references are: Schwartz, Michael (June 5, 2012). "Rap Music Figure Convicted of Running Multimillion-Dollar Cocaine Ring". New York Times. Retrieved 8 September 2012. Nate, Schweeber (May 14, 2012). "Drug Trial Starts for Figure Prominent in Rap World". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 September 2012. SCHWEBER, Nate (May 13 2012). "Drug Trial Starts for Figure Prominent in Rap World". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 September 2012. By the way, I have a feeling a lot more people will be looking for this article this year when Henchman is sentenced for the drug charges and the trial begins for his alleged murder of Lodi Mack. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2012 (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:Yunshui under criterion A10 as a page duplicating Ice pack. Non-admin closure "Pepper" @ 10:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How_To_Keep_Perishables_Safe_During_Transits?[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/How To Keep Perishables Safe During Transits?

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

This looks like an automated translation of some foreing article - the title probably does not conform to Wikipedia naming conventions Itemirus (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now speedy-deleted. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fisciculture[edit]

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

This is a newly-coined neologism made up by two friends, and as such is unverifiable, non-encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. — sparklism ^hey! 07:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish that there was a speedy category that covered this, since it's one of those things that was thought up one day and has not yet become notable. The claims that it would be included in the upcoming releases of dictionaries does not seem to be actually backed up by any reliable sources and the term itself lacks reliable sources in any context to show that it's widely used or notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Term presumably conjured into existence by the article author and no evidence that it meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the cited coiners is Amrit Sinha and the article author is Amrit 3082 (talk · contribs). Amrit must be a common name. —Tamfang (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. No coverage found in reliable sources for this term. Gongshow ^Talk 14:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:ONEDAY. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. ~~Redirect to Fish farming~~ – The definition of Fisciculture in the article is entirely incorrect, and is almost certainly original research. However, this is an actual term regarding the distribution and locating of fish by humans. Here are some source examples: From 1889 CE, From 1874 CE. It appears that in contemporary times, "Fisciculture" is not used very often, with "Pisciculture" being the more common contemporary usage. Also, "Pisciculture" currently redirects to the Fish farming article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could those be OCR errors or other mis-reading of pisciculture? The Deseret News piece includes the word only in the headline (unless I missed another instance) where the letter is not clear. It looks to me like it could be P or F. Cnilep (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know what, upon review the Deseret News piece appears to be a scan error in which the letter P is obscured, appearing as an F. The second source is probably a typographical error. Therefore, I've modified my !vote above. Thanks for the astute observation! Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Deletetantisme. Francl (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aras Corp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Non notable company. No redeeming characteristics that make it worthy of a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk -

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by non-notable?? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 06:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Snow keep Clearly notable. Sources present in the page do establish notability (for example, look at this Wall Street Journal article [41] Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or this [42] Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or this [43] Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or this Microsoft and Open Source? Aras Leads the Way Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or this Aras Embraces Microsoft .NET Platform to Offer Open Source PLM Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or this Aras Move Puts New Spin on Open Source Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or this Aras is First Enterprise Open Source Solution Certified for Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have I made my point? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's much much more!!!! Muahahahah. To those that say its non-notable, I'm tempted to give more sources. The company is clearly notable.... Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad if some kind soul could prove me wrong Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've made my comments on the articles talk page some time ago. I think it's pretty rude of User:Alan Liefting to propose this for deletion again without addressing my comments on the talk page after las ttime he proposed this for deletion. Here is what I wrote last time:

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because as poor as the article is, the product and company appear to be noteable. Try searching for "Aras upfront ezine", "Aras Autodesk", "Aras Dassault" and I think a number of interesting stories and articles come up.

Autodesk, Aras and Integrated PDM / PLM story
http://www.upfrontezine.com/2011/upf-708.htm (disclaimer, the article mentions me)
Aras Innovator: PLM on a Shoestring
Aras Innovator: PLM Done Differently

While the first of those is a straight forward blog the other three are quite respected, or at least I've seen them before. So I think this article could grow to be useful. I've only looked at Aras' PLM software I don't know anything about what else they do. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Improve article or Delete~~ - Keep per the 2+ RS found by Northamerica1000. The company MAY be notable, but the fact remains that the current article lacks independent reliable sources to prove it so. My admittedly incomplete spot checking of the links provided by Bonkers The Clown show that the WSJ "article" is 53 words of coverage from a news release, and some of the others are also simple pickups of the same News Release. I didn't check the links from DuLithgow, but If there are sources that meet WP:RS in there, I still don't see them cited in the article. Celtechm (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not too fussed about this article, but it's been growing for about 5 years, there is industry awareness of this company and their flagship product. Celtechm's comment that the article is poor is quite true. At least two of the four sources I've noted are well read sources in the AEC industry. Does the fact that their contents haven't been references from the article actually have any bearing on whether the subject is notable? I've been slammed in the past for deleting entries on Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_AEC because they look barely notable and have no wikipedia page at all. So I'm trying to learn from this process. Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines_to_cite_in_deletion_debates sure looks interesting. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NRVE: topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Agreed... with much effort obviously spent to find so many unreliable sources, I had assumed that the reliable ones did not exist. That's one reason that citing them IN the article is always a best practice, even if we can rely upon Availability in AFD dicsussion. Celtechm (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't WP:PRESERVE an editing policy, not a deleting policy? I don't think its quite relevant. But anyway, sans that, I agree with your argument. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Examples: [44], [45], [46], [47]. See also: WP:not notable and WP:Just unencyclopedic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:16, 5 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mask and Bauble Dramatic Society[edit]

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

One of several Georgetown University articles that is reliant on the student newspaper to establish notability. Other sources do not appear to do anything in that regard. —Ryulong (琉竜) 06:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the oldest in its field, dating to 1852. I've added more sources today, including two books, but User:Ryulong categorical rejection of campus and local news sources makes it very difficult. The Washington Post Magazine feature article from 2000 is great, though paywalled. I'll have access to additional books on the history of Georgetown and these organizations after the weekend, and can supplement then.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 18:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Campus news sources are not independent reliable sources. The Hoya has to report on things happening on campus.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I disagree with that logic. There's no administrator telling authors at The Hoya to write about a given topic. Its difficult relationship with the school is actually a topic you can read about on its page. Its no different than a local newspaper covering topics for a small town. I can also add a Bibliography, as the group is credited with authoring numerous published plays over the years, as registered with the LoC.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 20:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable with reliable sources- an 8000-word feature by the Washington Post is certainly reliable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per [48], [49] (subscription required). Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – John Barrymore an alumnus? It's seriously old. It's part of Georgetown University. More sources/references I'm sure can be found. Artaxerxes (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University Alumni & Student Federal Credit Union[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources used in the article are independent reliable sources. Everything is inherently involved with Georgetown University, such as the student paper, or the credit union is not even a central aspect of the source. —Ryulong (琉竜) 06:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None? No offense Ryulong, but there ARE independent sources. Right in the article. Look again. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eg. The Washington post Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the focus, opinion piece, can't access it, can't access it and the abstract doesn't seem like GUASFCU is the subject, not the focuse of the piece.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. One point to note. Independent campus news sources should not be rejected, much as other locally focused newspapers wouldn't be. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because its not the main focus does not mean that there's no mention of it. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to kindly bring your attention to the fact that the sources clearly highlight "The organization’s longevity and size of membership", which are the first considerations in determining notability according to WP:CLUB. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are to the school newspaper. Could you tell me the sources completely unaffiliated with the school that mention this "longevity and size of membership"?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent campus news sources should not be rejected, much as other locally focused newspapers wouldn't be, so school newspapers should still be accepted. While they wouldn't be enough on their own, they work to provide backup for the independent sources which mention the GUASFCU. And hence, such a combination would establish notability and pass WP:N and WP:GNG. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are campus news sources really independent from the subject here? It would seem to me that the Georgetown University student newspaper more or less has to report on things like the credit union.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article passes notability guidelines. Side note: the GUASFCU is a multimillion dollar corporation with thousands of members across the United States, and the oldest and largest in its field. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see what's changed since February. And I don't know how you say that its not the focus of The Washington Post article from last year. I'd like to see it be written less like an advertisement, but that shouldn't land it here. Honestly, I think this is very good for a student business, an article that others can look to as a template. I made a few edits today, adding another reference, and integrating the Philanthropy section as was recently requested.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, "Can't access it" is not a valid denunciation of a reliable source. -- Wikipedical (talk)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petsitting.com[edit]

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

Lacks substantial coverage from independent sources Yaksar (let's chat) 06:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm finding nothing substantial other than PR and passing mentions. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination. Yaksar is following me around and trying to delete articles I edit. CallawayRox (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged the article for notability awhile back; that hasn't changed in the meantime. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gormiti. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gormiti (TV series)[edit]

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

Non-notable, very little about the show (outside of the Nick UK website) via Google searches. No sources given on the page, doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:N or WP:V. Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 06:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Gormiti. It's rare for a tv show with over 50 episodes and broadcast internationally in several major markets to not be notable, but I'm finding very little - a few sources in the trade press[50][51][52] which don't indicate much independent analysis, and a review on Common Sense Media[53]. Hence, coverage in the main article on the brand is sensible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. TBran dl ey 16:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge notable tv series (50+ episodes) should be apart of encyclopedia.Righteousskills (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Peterson (technologist)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. He's got some patents. He's written some stuff. He's been 'vice president of product marketing' which seems to involve getting his name and short quotes in lots of technical press. Not one of the references is independent. None of them have in-depth coverage of him as a person. The most interesting claims in the article ("... instrumental in helping design the DoD's largest Firewall infrastructure for the Defense Information Systems Agency and NMCI."; place of birth; USMC background; etc) appear to be entirely unsupported by the references, let alone independent ones. There are many people of this name in both google and google scholar, with no obvious other sources that are clearly this John Peterson. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs better sourcing to justify notability, namely

"inventor of the industries first 10 gigabit Intrusion Prevention System"
"instrumental in helping design the DoD's largest Firewall infrastructure for the Defense Information Systems Agency and NMCI."

Green Cardamom (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Independent sources do not establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2012 (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T'Pel[edit]

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

None of the subjects listed on the disambiguation page have articles, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Because they're all minor Star Trek characters, it's unlikely that there will ever be dedicated articles to disambiguate. SGCM (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Tuvok#Relationships. It is illogical to have a dab page w/ no possibility of future articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full FIFA Men's World Rankings[edit]

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

Extensive copy of a table from FIFA. Not sure if this constitutes original enough information to qualify as a copyvio. Needs discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – clearly a copyvio of http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/index.html. – Kosm1 fent 04:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, leaning towards speedy delete as potential copyvio. Giant Snowman 08:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criterion G12 (copyvio). The only content in this article is the full rankings, and there is already an article explaining the history and format of the ranking system at FIFA World Rankings, so there is no need to keep this one whatsoever. – PeeJay 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For those !voting delete for copyvio, note that although this is indeed extensively copied, if it is general enough information without any creative input it may not be a copyvio. Imagine List of tallest buildings in the world being copied from a source, including height, date of completion, and name of the construction; that would not be a copyvio as there is no creative input. "The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time", as creative endeavor went into selecting the information, would be a copyvio if it were copied in full. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The FIFA World Rankings do indeed involve some creative endeavour, since the algorithm used to determine each team's points total is ubiquitous to this subject. If this list was ordered by numbers of international wins, it would not be possible to copyright it, but this list is copyrighted by FIFA and its replication here is a violation of that copyright. – Pee Jay 20:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. England are 3rd?! Yeah, right... Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 07:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure if this is copyvio and should be speedy deleted, but I do know that it's not encyclopedic and should be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criteria G12 (copyright violation) and A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). This page is redundant to FIFA World Rankings. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 14:25, 11 September 2012 (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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Olson[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. College football players who receive significant non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources pass WP:GNG. If they receive such coverage in national media outlets, they also pass WP:NCOLLATH. Although either one suffices, Olson appears to have received enough coverage to pass both standards. He also played at the highest level of the college sports as the starting quarterback at UCLA and was named the AT&T All-America Player of the Week for the opening week of the 2007 season. [54] Examples of coverage include: (1) Sports Illustrated feature on Olson, (2) Los Angeles Daily News feature on Olson, (3) Orange County Register feature on Olson, (4) Deseret News, (5) Deseret News, (6) AOL News, (7) ESPN, ESPN, (8) ESPN, (9) CBS Sports, (10) MSNBC, (11) Los Angeles Times, (12) Los Angeles Times, (13) Los Angeles Times, (14) Los Angeles Times, (15) Honolulu Advertiser, (16) Seattle Times, (17) USA Today, (18) Bruin Report Online. Cbl62 (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG. References should be added to the article, but that's an editing issue not a deletion issue.--

Paul McDonald (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC & WP:GNG. Reading some of the sources provided above by User:Cbl62 confirms this. Examples: [55], [56], [57], [58],

[59]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON, but probably satisfies WP:GNG based on the coverage in two of the article's three sourced footnotes alone----and that's before I started to review Cbl62's list of sources above. While this article raises an interesting question of whether or not the subject rises to the level of encyclopedic significance for inclusion, as long as Wikipedia continues to define "notability" in the manner in which it does, many college football quarterbacks of no particular accomplishments will continue to have stand-alone Wikipedia articles simply because of the volume of coverage that they receive. Subjectively evaluated, there's little that recommends his inclusion: he was a part-time starter with a history of season-ending injuries, middle-of-the-road passing statistics, no championships, and no national awards. It's one of the glaring flaws of Wikipedia's notability standard, but that's a policy discussion for another day. In all events, his infobox should be reverted to that of a college football player (not NFL player), as his notability, such as it is, is based entirely on his history as a CFB player, not his non-existent NFL career. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is a cruel mistress indeed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

. No flaw exposed here. GNG works fine. Standard should not be higher for athletes than businessmen or entertainers. Cbl62 (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2012 (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Roberson[edit]

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

This article is about a college football player who never played a down, and is now done for his career with an injury. He is no where near noteable DMC511 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This confirms DMC511 deletion rationale, Delete as WP:BLP1E as he never played a down of college football, and according to the source, probably would never will. Secret ^account 03:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gosh, I'm seeing a lot of articles in a search for +"Cameron Roberson" +"notre dame"... agree the career has ended, but it appears that somehow a good amount of coverage was drummed up, ranging from the Chicago Tribune to the Los Angeles Times.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not because of his accomplishments as a football player, but because somehow there's a lot of media drummed up about him. Would change my position if it proves to be "notoriety" and not "notability"--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the sources are about his injury history, which is unfortunate but a WP:BLP1E, no point in keeping BLPs around of people who simply never met notability guidelines as he never played for Notre Dame, and probably never will meet notability. Secret ^account 02:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with extreme prejudice. Notre Dame's website, ESPN and CBS confirm that he never played a down in a regular season college football game. Looks like his media coverage is limited to recruiting blogs and routine mentions regarding his high school sports career. If anyone seriously wants to keep this article, they need to produce links to specific examples of meaningful, non-trivial, non-routine coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources per WP:GNG. As a rule, 99.99% of all high school athletes have no business having a Wikipedia article. This guy does not look like an exception. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Paul - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominators rationale.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is a substantial feature story about Roberson in the Los Angeles Daily News, that feature was written during, and is directed at, Roberson's high school career. There is also a short piece from ESPN.com, but that piece is just a brief announcement that a Notre Dame backup running back was injured. While the national coverage could be argued to satisfy notability, I am persuaded to "delete" due to the fact that he never ran a single play or gained a single yard at Notre Dame, and he wasn't even considered a likely starter before the injury ended his career. Cbl62 (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2012 (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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 20:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bubb Rubb[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Converted redirect about a fairly ancient meme. Two previous AfDs, one keep and one delete. The most recent was delete, but it's a pretty old discussion. Mr. Rubb has since appeared on the Tosh.0 show, which adds enough notability to make another discussion worthwhile, I guess, although it's not enough to save the article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know, I know, WP:OTHERCRAP, but this one has showed more WP:PERSISTENCE and notability than a lot of what you'll find in Category:Internet memes. I've done some basic cleanup, but more work is needed, especially in sourcing. Alternatively, merge back into Whistle tip; there was no longer mention of Bubb Rubb there until a few minutes ago when I added a sentence or two back. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:WEB suggests adding a brief description to List of Internet phenomena for memes that aren't independently notable. This gets a bit of coverage on websites that are commercial/well-known but not particularly reliable, so I'm not sure if it qualities for notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both WP:WEB and WP:BIO. Ye olde meme that never really went anywhere, but a (protected) redirect to List of Internet phenomena might be okay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Whistle tip, where he is mentioned. Despite the recent Tosh.0 appearance, I'm not convinced he's significantly any more notable than he was in 2007. Robofish (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to History of Balochistan. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of Iranian Balochistan[edit]

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

WP:FORK of History of Balochistan Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been a political separation between Iranian Balochistan and what are now the Pakistani areas of Balochistan for over 150 years, and the current History of Balochistan article almost totally ignores Iranian Balochistan after the mid-19th century. Under these circumstances, the nominator's reason may be a good one for merging these two articles, but it is not a good one for deleting this one. PWilkinson (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge with History of Balochistan. I concur with the nominator as well as the user PWilkinson. Mrt 3366 ^{(Talk page?)} ^{(New section?)} 10:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with History of Balochistan.--Darius (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2012 (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 Trilateration. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Triangulation in three dimensions[edit]

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

Previously prodded, long how-to on a particular method of triangulation, for which there's already an article. Per WP:NOTHOWTO not an appropriate encyclopaedia topic. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant and so poorly written as to be unrescueable. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as a sub-article of triangulation. The content seems to be valid and could be merged to triangulation, but this should be discussed and decided at the talk page of article. My very best wishes (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to trilateration which is about exactly the same problem (determination of a location from distances to three known locations in 3d space) and, though far from perfect, much better written. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to trilateration per David Eppstein. -- 202.124.72.63 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Birth order. Rs chen 7754 02:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthborn[edit]

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

sources are 2 books, not scholarly. no evidence that these traits are established by research. we currently dont have lists of first, second or third born, so this is wholly nonnotable as a list. the throwaway line indicates this article is intended as an insult to a particular individual. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I tried cleaning this up a little bit, removing the sources that were pretty obviously unusable and properly listing the others. I'm going to abstain from voting, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (however minimally) and redirect to birth order. Not enough content to stand alone, and the list is completely worthless unless there is sourced commentary on how being fourthborn specifically impacted any of those notable individuals. postdlf (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (however minimally) and redirect to birth order. exactly per Postdlf. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. valid search term, even if there is no content deemed mergeable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to International Air Transport Association. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IATA class codes[edit]

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

This article is nothing but a list of factually inaccurate booking classes. Booking classes are not standard across the industry, and with the exception long ago of the F/J/Y codes they never were standardised.

The first line is wrong, codes are not used for standardisation but rather to limit the number of lower fares being sold. Even the intro then goes on to state the obvious – that airlines ″use their own fare code″. This is further evidence by the line - ″To find your airline's actual fare codes, please see the airline's web site″. If the info is so wrong that we need to refer people to another site, then the information should be removed.

P is not always first class, I and Z are not always business class. The economy section is silly, it's basically the rest of the alphabet with more inaccurate claims about which codes are used for what type of fare.

I can't see any redeeming features of this article. It can only ever be a list of codes, but they are almost all demonstrably wrong. --Dmol (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nom. These codes, while might be accurate for some carriers, are not for many and are not standardized for all carriers. For example: On the world's largest airline Delta Airlines, "E" refers to the lowest coach fare and not "premium economy" and "O" refers to a "Business Elite" award fare and not economy as the article claims. [60] See many other examples in the link. Unless the article's editors are committed to listing all codes for all airlines, this list is simply inaccurate without saying so and is currently serving a terrible disservice to the public.--Oakshade (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article presents the "1.1 Prime Code (mandatory)" subsection of the "1 Fare Basis Code (mandatory)" section of IATA Resolution 728, which starts with "Resolved that: [...] the codes shown below shall be used". It is interesting that IATA members ignore these mandatory rules, but that should not be a reason not to report on them. (There are people who fall under the Tax Code of Russia but do not comply, but we still have an article on it.) The arguments for deletion presented thus far have no validity; we do not delete articles simply because some of the information may be incorrect. (The version of Reso 728 that I saw had no codes E and O; they also weren't included in the original version of the article, but inserted later by other editors.) Maybe it can be argued that the topic is not notable. --Lambiam 08:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The problem is not that there are some information may be incorrect as you state, but rather that the entire article is inaccurate. The fact that this list may fall under an IATA resolution is irrelevant, that is not what the article is about. The list is presented as a list of booking codes for airlines reservations (the field I have worked in for 20 years) and it is over 90 percent wrong. If I took out every error there'd be nothing left . --Dmol (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to International Air Transport Association, per WP:GNG. It probably warrants a mention there, per the single ref in the article (which is a dead link but available at archive.org). -- Trevj (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2012 (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with IATA Not standaradised, not notable, a mention or paragraph in IATA would be sufficient.

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 to delete the current article, which is much different than the one present for almost all of the discussion. Permission to speedily renominate is given. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Morgan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

notability/field of expertise not yet established. re-creation of previous article that was deleted after debate for lack of notability Partitas (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is sourced by news pieces in the Daily Telegraph and The Scottish Sun (which I added yesterday, contesting a PROD of this article), and BBC cover her television appearances. Other news items helping to establish notability are here, here and here. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing substantial has happened in her career over the last few years that changes the notability decision. I'm sure most of the same references were there then. Whilst she's disabled, she still needs to be notable in her field. ie: paralympians (athletics); Aimee Mullins (model); Stephen Hawkins (physicist); Ade Adepitan (tv presenter). Paradisepark (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, can you clarify why the sources I have given are either a) unreliable, b) not independent, c) not covering the article's subject in significant depth or d) any combination of these? Saying "It's just not notable" doesn't make it so. And since when have other articles had anything to do with an AfD? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Field" notability could be part of what makes this person notable, but what is of greater consideration to this discussion is that neither WP:V nor WP:GNG dictate the content of coverage. In having coverage in multiple reliable sources for whatever reasons, it is up to article contributors to draw information from the available sources and present such to readers in an encyclopedic manner. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable, being the subject of multiple independent and reliable sources. A "field of expertise" is not required for our biographies. Warden (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:ANYBIO: The article doesn't satisfy the requirement that 1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. 2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. If her specific field is art and tv presenting, as stated in the lede, she doesn't satisfy either.Mehmit (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included;" --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ongoing news coverage, not extensive, but ongoing. She is often interviewed by disability websites and magazines. The article is not well-referenced, but RS (spanning a significant time period) exist and there is potential for it to be Wikified, properly referenced and tidied up and expanded. These are the same arguments as we had recently for Debbi van der Putten, which was a Snow Keep, and I do not see how Sophie Morgan is any less notable than Debbi van der Putten. She is notable in the disabled world as an activist and campaigner for disabled equality. Mabalu (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per [61], [62], [63]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - Per notability requirements as above with plenty of sources. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a minor 'celebrity' in the disabled world but little known outside of it. Her reputation seems to have been largely built by her publicist.Transparentfish (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:GNG for the many various aspects of her life and career. While three years ago an article about her was deemed premature,[64] her coverage since that time has grown... not vanished. While certainly not the most notable disabled person ever, she is now just notable enough for Wikipedia. Letting this one remain and continue to grow over time and through regular editing serves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't believe this one is up again! Given the content of the debate, another article at a later date when she has achieved more would seem to be the answer.NationalTreasure (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...you cannot believe that three years after the first did not have quite enough notability, we have a second effort at a topic that has sourcability that it did not back in 2009? Yup. We're now revisiting the topic and judging it... not by what it had in 2009, but rather by what it has in 2012. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned on the article's talk page, I haven't had much time to go and find more sources - but I'm disappointed those who voted "Delete" couldn't rip my argument to shreds, pointing out why the five sources I have routed out since this AfD opened are no good. The best I've read so far is "The Sun - ewwwwww". --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The removed citation from The Scottish Sun should be returned, as there is no ongoing discussion at WP:RSN about its contextual use here and more recent discussions at RSN of The Sun and affiliates, while generaly disliking tabloids for their style and format, have resulted in use being contextually acceptable,[65][66] as long as contentious or gossipy assertions are not made and sourced solely to the tabloid. The article talk page discussion was between just two editors, and "two" does not reflect a wider consensus reached elsewhere. I have now added my 2 cents to THAT discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is beginning to look a bit like "Disability - ewwwww", but let's not go down THAT path... Mabalu (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the Scottish Sun source, as there seems to be a 3-1 consensus to re-add it. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: While the opinions for delete above may have been based upon former state of the nominated stub, or upon a belief that the GNG is "over-ruled" by various SNGs intended to work in concert with WP:N, the article has undergone improvement, some with the assistance of the nominator,[67] since the last delete was made. It now better serves the project and its readers.[68] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 11 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Praescient Analytics[edit]

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

See article talk page for detailed comments on individual sources. Relies largely upon self-published sources, and sources of IMO questionable reliability to establish notability. This is a recent posting from the WP:AFC process, where i first looked at it, and I don't think it was ready for the move to mainspace. DES ^(talk) 01:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move back to AfC space, as nominator. DES ^(talk) 01:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DES. I think AFC needs some discrimination. Someone else moved an article to main space to decide whether or not the article was a hoax. Just do not bring these to mainspace without sufficient sources and notability. Eau (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I approved this article. I was ready to tag the editor until I read all the talk pages. From the conversations, I don't know why the submitting editor was not blocked. Since he was not, I approved it. I assumed there would be problems, but the last person I expected was DES. There are some subjects where third party sources are non-existent, because some things are SECRET, such as movie productions and military companies, so we have to use primary sources. I'm in the same industry, and my clients don't like that they are even mentioned in my customer list, let alone any projects or products I've worked on. I'm surprised they have as much open coverage as they have. I did not think the article was blatant advertising and I don't consider SmartCEO or The Center for Public Integrity all that unreliable. The one article is mainly about the CEO, I'll give you that and the other barely more than a passing mention but as I said, knowing the business they are in, it was good enough for me. -- :- ) Don 02:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should add WP:OR to its sourcing problems? We can't decide it is notable based on insider knowledge. That's not our job. Eau (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say it was blatant advertising, and I don't see any reason to block the submitter. True he has a COI, but he disclosed it openly and submitted the content to vetting which he didn't have to do. I see no violation of the Conflict of interest guideline. My entire issue is with notability. I rather suspect that this firm will be notable in time, if they go on as they have started, but I think they are at best marginal at this time. SmartCEO seems to be supported by advertising from their subjects and to take their facts from questionnaires filled out by the subject firms, and to explicitly deny that any quality ratings are their own opinions. Sounds rather like glorified press releases to me -- and even if it isn't, are they more than purely local coverage? WP:LOCAL says that coverage beyond the local is normally required for notability, although I grant that DC as the capitol of the USA is an unusual locality. DES ^(talk) 05:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Center for Public Integrity isn't cited in the article as it now stands. If you mean the ICIJ report, the subject is mentioned in one passing sentence. DES ^(talk) 05:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to things being SECRET, that may well be true, but as long as they are effective in their secrecy they cant come to general notice, and so aren't notable, almost by definition. If a field is such that we can't gt secondary sources for many items, then we won't write about many items. There seem to be plenty of secondary sources about movie productions. No doubt there are lots of interesting military topics where we won't have good sources until many years after the event, if then, but I don't think that means we should relax sourcing and notability rules. DES ^(talk) 05:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not much argument from me. They are marginally notable. They appear to be kind of a sub-contractor or a preferred vendor for certain tasks, not a Raytheon or Lockheed. It's not likely that much about what they do will ever get big, if much of any media coverage. So we have the choice of leaving it in AfC maybe forever, or MFD, or put it out and see if it survives PROD. Yes with big budget block buster films, production information is available third party, but if the movie does not have a big star, the production is pretty much ignored by the media, leaving only primary sources, the people involved. This is a similar situation. The Center for Public Integrity publishes the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. I'm pretty sure I've said everything. We will just wait for consensus. -- :- ) Don 07:43, 4 September 2012

If I may weigh in... Don, the clandestine nature of this industry definitely contributes to the lack of third party information; Although there is coverage of the companies that Praescient works with. These don't mention Praescient by name, so they cannot be used as reliable sources. I feel that I've used the biased sources (main webpage and SmartCEO) only as sources for uncontroversial information, like type of business, % of employees in the military, and the facts about the Knowlton Project. I'll continue to scour the web for any other coverage, as well as add new articles/sources as the become available. Could we add some kind of disclaimer like I've seen on other pages? Thanks to everyone for working with me; this is my first submission and the world of Wikipedia takes some getting used to! --ScottPraescient (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Don, you are right that the production of smaller movies and various other potentially interesting events often have few or no secondary sources. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and until someone collects those primary sources and writes and publishes a reliable secondary source, Wikipedia won't have an article. That is even more basic than notability, that is part of WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOT#OR, which is one of the Five Pillars. So there will always be topics which exist, which are even verifiable, and which wikipedia won't cover. DES ^(talk) 16:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott, you and Praescient may be caught in one of those situations -- which side of the line you are on is precisely what this discussion will decide. I'm not sure what kind of disclaimer you are thinking of, in principle wikipedia articles don't carry disclaimers beyond the General Disclaimer that all articles carry. You may be thinking about cleanup templates such as ((notability)) or ((refimprove)). Those are not intended as disclaimers, they are notices that there is (or some editor thinks that there is, at least) a problem with the article that should be fixed as soon as possible. If the problem cannot be fixed, or hasn't been fixed after a while, an editor may well start a deletion discussion such as this one, depending on the precise circumstances. If the current article does get deleted I'll be happy to copy the source to a user sub-page for you, and as additional sources are available it can be improved, until it seems ready to try article space again.

Yes wikipedia can be confusing to a new editor. I hope you haven't found your experience too negative, and have come to understand a bit better what Wikipedia is and isn't. Perhaps you will even choose to edit other articles where your knowledge and skills can help without the problems faced in this instance. DES ^(talk) 16:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability is not questionable here, it is clearly missing. The only (pathetic) effort to establish it is the awards spam. Be this company's operations secret or not, it doesn't excuse it from notability requirements. FWIW if there could be some content verifiable with primary sources, definitely this company's operations are not secret enough to bar reliable sources from writing about it; otherwise the very existence of this article violates two policies and endangers Wikimedia Foundation (from legal point of view). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:12, 5 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Downstream OS[edit]

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

Unreleased OS of unclear notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: IMO notability of yet to be release Linux distribution is pretty clear: none. Still, this is of small relevance, as the topic is excluded per WP:CRYSTAL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously? This needs another 7 days for more discussion? Unreleased, vaguely scheduled Linux distro produced in a "home lab" (I'm guessing the proper term is "bedroom") by some guy named Franco, built in SUSE Studio (which lets anyone "develop their own Linux OS" by choosing which packages they want included), the only source -- and that's using a very loose definition of the word "source" -- for which is a Kickstarter-type site page created by Franco looking for project funding that currently has precisely 0 backers. Obvious, and preferably a sped-up, delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I think this is hilarious, I note that SUSE Studio's site boasts that 6099 builds have been created this week. This was one of the builds that was produced last week, apparently. Or not, as it's not finished. :D ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonnotable, as above. No Reliable sources. Dialectric (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enersian[edit]

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

Unsourced topic, and for an article on a supposed Iranian trend to write English in Perso-Arabic script it has no discernible equivalent article on the Farsi Wikipedia IrishStephen (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable concept; these are the only hits for "Enersian" on Google Books, News, or News archives, and they all appear to be false positives or brief mentions without significant coverage. CtP (t • c) 23:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2012 (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. postdlf (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Little Penguin colonies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note. The first nomination was closed because the article was linked for the Main Page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of this type is not possible without some sort of inclusion criteria. See the talk page comments. The tourist attractions can be added to the Little Penguin article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Little Penguins and their colonies are significant tourist attractions and are protected by governments such as Australia. If the nominator wants some sort of inclusion criterion then that's a matter of ordinary editing. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer deletion rather than trying to make this article work. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article works already in providing reasonably accurate information about the nesting sites for these birds. "Perfect is the enemy of good". Warden (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was deemed notable enough to be on Wikipedia's main page. That means it has to be a featured article as well. It should not have been sent to AFD without talking on the talk page about any editing that should be done. More information could be added, instead of just the location, listing any referenced details found in tourists brochures, government websites, newspapers, or other reliable sources. Also the name should be changed to List of colonies of Little Penguins, to show there is a species of penguin called Little Penguin, and this isn't just a penguin colony that is little. I'll see about adding a few references to the article. Dream Focus 17:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a featured article. It was a plain old link from a featured picture description that was on the Main Page. As for the content that you describe that can be place in the Little Penguin article itself. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The inclusion criteria for the article is already implied, since Little Penguins occur naturally in Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand, with reports of colonies in Chile and South Africa (possibly due to vagrancy, or maybe from being transported from the Australian continent). Furthermore, the information on the article's talk page (e.g. "Little penguins do not breed in well defined colonies...) appears to be unverified speculation/original research. Information in the Little Penguin article counters this notion, where it states "They exhibit site fidelity to their nesting colonies and nesting sites over successive years." and "Little Penguins live year-round in large colonies, with each individual breeding pair forming a burrow in which to raise their chicks (of which two are born at a time, usually about 2 days apart)." Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article has been significantly improved compared to its state at the time of nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination makes no sense, since the scope of the article is clear, and plenty of sources exist. -- 202.124.74.37 (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I'd love some clarification by the nominator. The inclusion criteria appears quite obvious from the title of the article; what is the problem? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I noticed on the talk page: "Little penguins do not breed in well defined colonies". That does seem like a good reason for deletion; I would support deletion if this were true. However, the Little Penguin and what skimming of google scholar I've done suggest that the claim isn't true. So which is it: are there well-defined or notable groups such that it makes sense to have a list? Or is it just a few birds here and there along the entire coast? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly rename to Areal of Little Penguin. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, suggestion that they don't breed in colonies is nonsense (OR follows) I've been to two of the NZ colonies, one of which has regular evening watching sessions for people to watch the birds return to the colony; nests can be within a metre or so of each other, which is what a colony is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article has been massively improved by editor NorthAmerica. It now has a well defined scope and a well chosen selection of images. Cute city. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:SNOW close per WP:HEY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep no real substance to the initial nomination. "A list of this type is not possible without some sort of inclusion criteria" is bizarre at best, misguided if kind, ridiculous at worst. The list could be improved, but it's certainly not "not possible", its inclusion criteria are obvious from the title of the list. Worst case, add ((incomplete list)). What a waste of Wikipedia's bare resources to nominate this for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To me it seems to be a good topic for a list and the list looks quite good today. Incidentally, at this juncture I think that a consensus here seems obvious; see Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Snowman (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Fu Music[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainers. All refs are to youtube, facebook, itunes, twitter or their website. No evidence of independent coverage. Came third in a youtube compitetion; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana McKissack who came second. Trawling through google doesn't find anything independent and in-depth. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe the web series competition qualifies under criterion 9 of WP:MUSICBIO, and I'm not seeing evidence that the duo meets any of the guideline's other criteria. I'm also not finding significant coverage for the subject; does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 05:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass WP:GNG with the lack of WP:RS. Lana McKissack and Brothers Riedell, also Internet Icon finalists, also got AfD'd for the same reason. (WP:Articles for deletion/Lana McKissack and WP:Articles for deletion/Brothers Riedell) Zappa O Mati 00:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet Icon. The show seems to be relatively notable but nothing about this group or any of the articles up for AfD that in relation to this show have any notability outside of the show. There just aren't a large enough amount of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources to show that they're notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2012 (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.