< 13 April	15 April >

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Body earthing[edit]

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

The article consists of original research by combining journal articles which are not about the topic, and as well as advertising and fringe health advice. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BOLLOCKS. Pure OR not supported by the sources provided. Promotional and fringe nonsense. Nothing worth salvaging or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure WP:OR. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article may be mostly OR as it stands, but Google Scholar has a large number of articles on the term. scope_creep (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. You just found a few (34) irrelevant articles where the words "body" and "earthing" occur in succession, and where the word "body" usually refers to the body of a vehicle. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This phenomenon is normally simply called Earthing or Grounding, but those words are too ambiguous. It might be more correct to rename the article Earthing (physiology) or Grounding (physiology). Futile attempts at searching for Body earthing are hence insignificant. The articles quoted may seem to not be about the topic, but the relevance of research papers mentioning simply Grounding or Earthing should now be clear.

In what way is the article written like an advertisement? It is not promoting any product or service.

The book Earthing establishes notability, even though it is not fully scientific.

Simple solutions may seem pseudoscientific in comparison with sophisticated solutions. OlavN (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of an unreliable pseudoscientific book does not help establish notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Doesn't the use of a practice by millions of people deserve a mention in wikipedia? Are you saying that the peer-reviewed Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine and the Journal of Environmental and Public Health are unworthy sources? Go to PubMed and search for "Earthing" and you'll find many relevant articles. Finally, this isn't a reason to keep the article, but if you build this DIY device and test out Earthing for yourself, I think you'll be convinced it's something real. Jonathan108 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think they are unworthy of showing notability because the papers are clearly unreliable. Also, pubmed shows exactly 4 articles (3 by the same group), not "many". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link to PubMed which I provided searched for "earthing+grounding". I just changed it to search for "earthing" alone and it turned up five more relevant papers (two of them by researchers not associated with the previous groups.) Here is the new PubMed link. I don't know on what basis you have deemed the papers "unreliable." Jonathan108 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On reading the abstract and seeing they are nonsensical and published in unreliable journals. The concept that people need to be grounded by being wired up to a system with wires sticking into the ground outdoors is patently absurd and seemingly based off a child's conception of physics. Your pubmed search is a mixture of different topics. These aren't sources we can use to write an article. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NONE of the reliable sources provided by the keep voters above are at all relevant to the topic of this article. They are all coincidental occurences of the words used in articles on completely unrelated topics. NONE of the sources that mention this topic are reliable. None are on the National Institute of Health Core Clinical Journals list.[[1]]. The main source for this article, the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, isn't among the top 1000 medical journals on the SJR Medicine list.[[2]]Not surprisng, because it has an incredibly low JSR score of 0.56.[[3]]. They are all fringe or extreme minority publications with extremely little impact in the field. In short, I see no reliable sources whatsoever discussing the topic of this article, which is not surprising, at it is patent nonsense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not think that it is the job of the AfD discussion to determine the correctness of the article or how valid the science is. However, the sources for the article are not reliable enough for this article to be notable. The journal articles that exist are perhaps the strongest evidence for notability. They are from three journals: the Journal of Alternative Complementary Medicine, the Journal of Environmental and Public Health and Medical Hyopthesis. Neither of these journals are very reliable. All have very low impact factors (in fact the second one doesn't seem to be listed at all). The first two do not come from major publishing houses and are quite obscure and unreliable, and the third is perhaps one of the most notoriously pseudoscientific journals in existence.

The papers themselves seem unreliable as well. They all share the same few authors. In the paper "Earthing (grounding) the human body reduces blood viscosity-a major factor in cardiovascular disease," the authors disclose that they are "independent contractors for Earth FX, Inc., the company sponsoring earthing research, and own a small percentage of shares in the company." This combined with the low reputation of the journal itself seriously calls into question the reliability of the paper.

The authors of another paper, "Earthing the human organism influences bioelectrical processes" have no other papers ever published on PubMed except ones on Earthing. They have also written the paper "The neuromodulative role of earthing" published in Med. Hypotheses. A Google search for their names, Karol Sokal, and Pawel Sokal, turns up no mentions for anything other than Earthing. In fact, a search for the Department of Ambulatory Cardiology, Military Clinical Hospital, Bydgoszcz, Poland, (Karol Sokal's affiliation) turns up nothing other than more articles about Earthing. Their email addresses is hosted at wp.pl, what appears to be a Polish internet portal and not an academic institution.

I have looked into the topic thoroughly and have not found any evidence of any study in a notable, reliable journal by reliable third-party authors. I have only seen many articles of dubious source and reliability, as well as the typical array of news articles and blog posts advertising this so-called groundbreaking discovery. These sources are not NPOV and are advertisements, and I haven't even seen any reliable third-party sources that discredit or disprove grounding to balance the article out. Per WP:GNG, we need the article to be based on independent, neutral, third-party sources to ensure NPOV, which the topic lacks. I believe that there is really no real secondary source on the topic either -- the article cites wholly original sources which seem to be self-published ones in disguise. Per IRWolfie, the existence of a single book that bills earthing as the most important discovery ever does not help establish notability either. Note that the book shares an author, Stephen T. Sinatra, with the papers published in Journal of Environmental and Public Health, and is known to be a contractor of Earthing's sponsoring company, so the book is not a third-party secondary source either.

Overall, the sources available are neither reliable nor independent, and cannot be used to express a neutral point of view. They represent mostly original research, with third-party secondary sources non-existent. Thus, the article fails to meet WP:GNG, and thus should be deleted. Richard Ye^talk 07:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no, this isn't practiced by "millions" of people, Jonathan, and no, it doesn't "deserve" an article. It's clearly not notable and not even notable as a fringe theory. Notable freaky practices inlcude fart lighting and nose picking. Notable pseudosciences include wearing a tin foil hat, playing with a ouija board, and rolfing. This isn't one of them. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you haven't bothered to read down to the last paragraph of the article? It shows that earthing is practiced by perhaps billions - those going barefoot, swimming etc. (Their health benefits must of course be corrected for the other effects of poverty.) OlavN (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BOLLOCKS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's got to be the most absurd thing that I have ever heard as an argument. The neutral, third-party, secondary sources backing up your assertion are non-existent, as I have summarized in my argument above. Without those, Wikipedia cannot have an article on the subject. Period. Even if you were somehow correct in your assertion and Earthing is somehow real, Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not truth. Richard Ye^talk 19:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - New age quackery "backed" by fringe sourcing. Carrite (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deathstep[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. No references. Orphan. Ambiguous advertisement? Technical 13 (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unreferenced and with no claim to notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to establish notability and zero sources. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... the creator of the article (User:A11HAV3FA113N) removed the AfD notice from the article and added a YouTube video to the external links with this edit. The edit was reverted immediately by a bot. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - spectacularly non-notable, per WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. — Satori Son 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps a speedy delete is now in order per WP:SNOW. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Angelone[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to have any notability rationale.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He had a wonderful high school athletic career, but hardly enough to meet any claim of notability. The biggest surprise is that this article lasted so long. Alansohn (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a great high school athlete, but otherwise not notable for the level of notability that we require here. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG without substantial coverage by reliable sources. Citations in the article don't support any of the notability claims. RS coverage is local, routine, and passing. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG, author can ask for userfication should he make it big-time. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Waveword2 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelghani Mustafa Abdelghani[edit]

The first deletion discussion deleted mostly because the article was of poor quality but without prejudice to recreation. The current article is also of poor quality. Unfortunately, he seems to be at least a marginally notable Egyptian novelist - see http://viaf.org/viaf/69184887/ . Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and salt (given repeated recreation) -- no evidence at all of any notability whatsoever. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What was the basis for declining the speedy? This version is even worse than the one that was deleted at the first AFD. --B (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt — Not sure what the external link in the nomination was for. I found zero reliable coverage (WP:GNG). I found some publications, but no verifiable citation or indication of import (WP:AUTHOR). JFHJr (㊟) 23:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it seems this content is leaking onto Wikipedia directly from a Youtube fan page. JFHJr (㊟) 23:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also: another similar Youtube page, titled "golden knight", the English translation of the WP:SPA's Arabic handle (الفارس_الذهبي (talk · contribs)). Not a coincidence I bet. JFHJr (㊟) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. A lot of people in the WP community are getting tired of this WP:PROMO being recreated all the time. Qworty (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the authority control link is accurate (i.e. if this person really is http://viaf.org/viaf/69184887/ ) then rename and stubify as per http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/apr/12/publishing.society etc. Otherwise delete and salt. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the connection between this subject and Alaa Al Aswany. He's had an article since 2005. I think this must have been a misidentification. JFHJr (㊟) 21:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was obviously written first in Arabic and machine translated into English. I cleaned up what I could, but it still doesn't look very good. The image used is also up for deletion [4].--Auric talk 23:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the same person as the linked authority control ID, subject fails WP:GNG apparently and WP:AUTHOR as well. Especially obnoxious vanity bio as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 00:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olav Berstad[edit]

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

Non-notable by WP:DIPLOMAT ("Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.")

Similar to Jostein Helge Bernhardsen (below), this is one of about 90 articles in Category:Norwegian diplomat stubs that may be non-notable. The minimal stub is apparently a translation of the one in the online Store norske leksikon. AFAIK Berstad, like most other diplomats, has never been involved in an “event of particular diplomatic importance”.

(This is a single Afd. I would be interested to know if people think biographies like this can be bundled.) Klein zach 22:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For the record, here is the text in the user generated Store norske leksikon: "Olav Berstad, norsk diplomat, cand.mag. I utenrikstjenesten siden 1980, underdirektør 1996–98. Ambassadør i Baku 1998–2001, deretter spesialrådgiver i Utenriksdepartementet med ansvar for Barentssamarbeidet. Ambassadør i Kiev 2006-11." --Klein zach 05:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Permanent ambassadors should be presumed to be notable. Pburka (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator acknowledges that the subject appears in an encyclopedia of national biography. That's usually grounds for inclusion on its own. Pburka (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pburka: This source you added [5] is misleading. It actually refers to the Norwegian Foreign Minister. He was the OSCE envoy, not Berstad. So it doesn't confirm the statement "he was the Norwegian ambassador to Azerbaijan from 1998 to 2001". --Klein zach 12:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading in what way? The source states: "The Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of Norway to Azerbaijan Olav Berstad, said that he [Knut Vollebaek] would visit Armenia and Georgia, too." It at least confirms that he was ambassador to Azerbaijan in 1999. Pburka (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I also believe that ambassadors have a presumption of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia should have articles on all permanent ambassadors for the same reason it should have articles on all national legislators, judges on national courts, etc. You can call that "inherent notability" if you like, or a presumption that GNG will always be satisfied for such individuals; I really don't care because satisfying notability guidelines (which are a good but not perfect proxy for determining what is or isn't important enough to include) should not be a concern with obviously important subjects such as this, so long as we follow the policies of V, OR, NPOV (which actually are important all the time). Or you can call it an WP:IAR invocation, because deleting articles on permanent ambassadors does not improve the encyclopedia in any way. postdlf (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - inclusion in national encyclopedia of his country, Store norske leksikon should guide us. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The diplomatic community is a large one. There are over 200 countries in the world — we are talking about thousands of individuals. Should they all have an automatic right to a Wikipedia article in English? Ambassadors of major countries, in major countries, will normally be well-covered by sources, but ambassadors of minor countries in minor countries — basically running visa and commercial support offices — will only be mentioned by their own official media, or in many cases, just in lists. Having looked through a largish number of these articles, I’ve found found most of the minimal, unreferenced stubs in articles about ambassadors of middle and small-sized countries, usually created by an editor going through a government list (such as Foreign Affairs International Trade Canada [6]). The problem with declaring all ambassadors notable, if that we will then have to automatically list all other unelected officials of equivalent rank. This will gradually turn Wikipedia into something like LinkedIn. Is that really the way we want to go? Klein zach 03:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with the slippery slope argument (200x200x197 years since the Congress of Vienna) as a concern. The problem with automatic notability is the nature of the ambassador position itself. Ambassadors do not generally perform more than ministerial tasks today, and may act as "spokespeople for their foreign offices." In the United States, President Obama "has filled about 70 percent of the posts with career diplomats and 30 percent with political appointees." ^[1] A 1951 article in Time magazine says, "Today, a diplomat's freedom of action is no greater than his distance from a Teletype" ^[2]. As written WP:DIPLOMAT recognizes that some ambassadors do play significant roles in world events and are "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" WP:BIO, even if they do not otherwise meet WP:GNG. As of now, there does not appear to be consensus to change WP:DIPLOMAT. Enos733 (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and as of now, there does not appear to be consensus to delete this article. As I noted in the similar AFD, the DIPLOMAT guideline is inclusion criteria, not exclusion criteria, and in any event if enough of this ambassador AFDs turn out as these appear to be ending up, the guideline will eventually reflect that regardless of what's going on at its talk page right now. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, inclusion in paper encyclopedia (not user generated) meets WP:GNG which overrides or rather supplements any project specific inclusion guideline. Geschichte (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion is more about whether being a diplomat is a presumption of notability or not. We have 2 reasonable opposing viewpoints and I see neither changing. This discussion is also going on at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:DIPLOMAT and perhaps an RfD is in order to get a better picture of the communities opinion on this. J04n(talk page) 10:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jostein Helge Bernhardsen[edit]

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

Non-notable by WP:DIPLOMAT ("Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.")

This is one of about 90 articles in Category:Norwegian diplomat stubs that may be non-notable, a sub-cat of Category:Diplomat stubs which probably contains more than a thousand of these minimal stubs. These articles are usually written by editors on the basis of national sources, usually government published, though in the case of this article it is the online Store norske leksikon. AFAIK Bernhardsen, like most other diplomats, has never been involved in an “event of particular diplomatic importance”.

This is a single Afd. I would be interested to know if people think this kind of article can be bundled. Klein zach 21:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that permanent ambassadors, like Bernhardsen, should be presumed to be notable as they are certain to have generated significant coverage in reliable sources. Ambassadors almost invariably appear in Who's Who books, diplomatic journals, newspapers and almanacs. A quick search for Berhardsen finds several such reference on-line. Presumably more exist off-line, and given that references are likely to be in Norwegian and Ukrainian it's no surprise they're more difficult for English speaking editors to find. Here are a few I found in less than 5 minutes: [7][8][9] - a more in-depth search, especially by someone more familiar with Norwegian and Ukrainian sources would, I am certain, yield more results. Pburka (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miyoko Akashi. Comment The first article Pburka posted, the subject of this Afd is mentioned in passing, rather than the subject of the article. WP:GNG is met in when secondary sources are about the subject rather then about a particular event where the subject is mentioned in passing. The question is this case, and the other Afds involving Diplomats are not if they are (or were) an ambassador (easily verifiable), but rather if they meet WP:GNG or WP:Diplomat. Enos733 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I also believe that ambassadors have a presumption of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No, Ambassadors do not have a presumption of notability. If we are going to say he is notable for being a diplomat, we need sources that go into some detail as to his activities as a diplomat. Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia should have articles on all permanent ambassadors for the same reason it should have articles on all national legislators, judges on national courts, etc. You can call that "inherent notability" if you like, or a presumption that GNG will always be satisfied for such individuals; I really don't care because satisfying notability guidelines (which are a good but not perfect proxy for determining what is or isn't important enough to include) should not be a concern with obviously important subjects such as this, so long as we follow the policies of V, OR, NPOV (which actually are important all the time). Or you can call it an WP:IAR invocation, because deleting articles on permanent ambassadors does not improve the encyclopedia in any way. postdlf (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a discussion about WP:DIPLOMAT at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). As of now, there does not appear to be a consensus to change the guideline. Enos733 (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, but not determinative of this AFD in any meaningful way. WP:DIPLOMAT at present says only that satisfying those criteria may establish notability, not that not satisfying it means the article should be deleted. Guidelines also are not to be applied robotically or legalistically, and they are to describe common practice, not dictate it. I'm sure once we have enough of these AFDs keeping permanent ambassadors, DIPLOMAT will eventually reflect that result. And as of now, there does not appear to be a consensus to delete this article. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - inclusion in national encyclopedia of his country, Store norske leksikon should guide us. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the (complete) SNL entry is as follows: "Jostein Helge Bernhardsen, norsk diplomat, M.A. I utenrikstjenesten fra 1973. Ministerråd ved Norges delegasjon i Genève 1992-95. Avdelingsdirektør i Utenriksdepartementet 1995–2001. Ambassadør i Kiev 2001-06. Ambassadør i Brussel 2006-11." I.e. it lists his appointments in the same way that WP does. SNL is written by users. So does it really qualify as a relaible source? --Klein zach 04:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication it is an open wiki; they allow registered users to make suggestions, but they retain editorial control, and this article predates the decision to publish no more print versions. More importantly, their decision that ambassadors of Norway are sufficiently notable predates that decision. So I don't believe it has lost its normative status. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, inclusion in paper encyclopedia (not user generated) meets WP:GNG which overrides or rather supplements any project specific inclusion guideline. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the encyclopedia entry equate to "significant coverage?" The question is not whether the subject is an ambassador, but rather if the subject meets WP:GNG or the additional guideline of WP:DIPLOMAT. Enos733 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With no prejudice against recreation if more reliable sources are located. J04n(talk page) 00:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Aigner (Media entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Advert masquerading as an article. Article fails WP:BIO. Most references are generic or profile and the article has very little in the way of third party sources. Seems to be an advert for a single individual of no remarkibility. scope_creep (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recommend to delete! Sure there can be mistakes in this article, but I ensure, that I have posted the sources properly and also the translation from the german article is correct. --The Seraph _{life from Germany} (DISCU/EDITS/MAIL) 04:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I have to do, that the article doesn't sound like "advertising"? What information is needed to confirm its importance on the English Wikipedia-site? I enclose you the article of the now well known German moderator Kai Pflaume, whose importance is similar with Thomas Aigner as moderator [[10]]. I think, that both articles meet the criteria of keeping them in the Wikipedia. --The Seraph _{life from Germany} (DISCU/EDITS/MAIL) 14:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further Information: Thomas Aigner has hosted 580 Shows "sale of the century" and worked for

the biggest public broadcasters as presenter: ARD and ZDF. As well as private TV-Stations Tele5 and VOX. He was awarded for his work and is now working as film producer for unique aviation documentaries. The Seraph _{life from Germany} (DISCU/EDITS/MAIL) 19:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC) The references can be updated, if wanted.[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:SPIP. This BLP does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO; cited sources do not meet WP:SOURCES. Miniapolis 15:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Subject to rewrite) – I agree that the article contains a great deal of seemingly promotional content which needs to be removed. However, the subject clearly meets WP:ENT. He has presented four mainstream shows on national television. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDo not delete:

- The BLP does meet WP:BASIC WP:ENT - He had significant roles in television shows:

- Cited sources do meet WP:SOURCES

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES>

1. 580 Shows "sale of the century" on Tele5 germany (host); proof: [11], proof: [12], proof: [13]

2. 30 Shows "Voxbox Newsquiz" on Vox (host); proof: [http://www.fernsehserien.de/voxbox

3. 24 Shows That's amore on ZDF - Public Service Broadcasting (host); proof: [14]

4. 12 Shows "netNite" on ZDF - Public Service Broadcasting (presenter); proof: [15]

5. 1 Show "Internet new world" - 3Sat&Public Broadcasting San Francisco (moderator); proof: [16].

--The Seraph _{life from Germany} (DISCU/EDITS/MAIL) 20:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither IMDB nor Wikipedia itself (as wikis) are reliable sources. Miniapolis 01:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks non-inherited notability. Current article is publicity (WP:SPIP) with only (possibly) one good, reliable source (welt.de)—the rest of the refs are self-published or not relevant to proving BLP facts. WP:ENT is a guideline—there's no conclusive proof that this person passes the GNG or has had a particularly notable contribution to the entertainment arts. czar · · 05:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dave Pelzer. Sasquatch t|c 00:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Man Named Dave[edit]

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

I didn't find any reliable sources to show this book passes GNG. Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notability depends on the earlier volume, The Lost Boy, which achieved massive coverage in the lowbrow book clubs and breakfast TV. As this is a sequel within the same overall memoir, it would seem to qualify likewise. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

notability is not inherited-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although notability is not inherited, this book has been on both the NY Times hardcover and paperback top 10 non-fiction bestsellers lists. It is in the Library of Congress catalog. There are independent reviews available online. The article needs work, certainly, but proof of notability does exist. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that you would say that being in the LOC makes it notable... would you also say that every tweet ever posted on Twitter from 2006 to 2010 is also notable? Because those are in the LOC too. Independent reviews online? Where? I didn't find them in my search. -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. —→Davey2010→Talk to me!→ 23:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dave Pelzer unless substantially improved and reviews added. I'm surprised that I could find so little online about this[17][18] but it doesn't seem to have got the same press as his earlier books. The article is totally lacking in encyclopedic content, being nothing but a plot summary. Pelzer is very notable, but this book doesn't appear to be, and there's nothing mergeable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dave Pelzer until and unless more coverage is found. J04n(talk page) 17:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dave Pelzer, as has been done with the succeeding book in the series (The Privilege of Youth); article's subject does not meet WP:NBOOK. Miniapolis 13:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete listcruft--Salix (talk): 16:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the cover of GQ (India)[edit]

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

Pure listcruft. Provides no encyclopedic knowlegde. No discernible point except as a vanity list. I think it fails. WP:BASIC (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There doesn't seem to be a reason for the article at all. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This list is pretty much like every other list under this category, Category:Lists of people by magazine appearance. If we are going to delete this. We have to delete almost everything under that category. BigJolly9 (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Salix (talk): 16:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ifrit: Danzai no Enjin[edit]

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

Non-notable manga. Tagged for notability issues since 2009. Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Arkorful[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fail relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Unknown people. Elmo420v (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I'm usually not a fan of delete all cases, but because they all do not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and should be deleted. Mkdw ^talk 08:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Salix (talk): 16:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Publishing Company (Taiwan)[edit]

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

Organisational advert masquerading as an article. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ORG. References are orgs. own website with very minor third party news source. scope_creep (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to reword the opening sentence. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't make sense. Surely you mean "advert masquerading as an article" rather than "advert masquerading as an advert" or "article masquerading as an advert"? Are you sure that you understand the words that you are writing? And are you sure that you are in the right frame of mind today to be writing deletion nominations? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks better. I hope you didn't take offence at my previous post - we all have the occasional brain fart. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Prior to this instance of the article, there were several prior versions (also featuring interesting use of English), all of which were speedy-deleted, and their contributing editor was blocked. If this AfD results in deletion, it would be worth also salting this and the previous variant names. AllyD (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Salix (talk): 16:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Littler[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, tagged for notability, references and third-party sources since 2010. Nothing outside of blogs and Myspace to indicate this person was notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a person who did a bit of this and a bit of that. I could not find any significant coverage about him that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Elmo420v (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Salix (talk): 16:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo transistor radar with AAPS[edit]

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

WP:CSD#G11 was contested. This is a pile of self-invented COI OR that belongs in a student project, not an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a former electronics hobbyist and electronics tech I completely concur with the nominator. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Mildly interesting topic—not so much an encyclopedia article. Belongs on instructables.com. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 21:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no references, this looks like original research and a Google search confirms that there are no hits. With no reliable sources, the article cannot stay. --Mark viking (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 17:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Fraud[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Minor producer Harry Fraud who fails WP:BAND. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 14 April 201 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Coverage including XXL Fact Magazine, HipHop DX, The Fader, and Complex Magazine. Not to mention the MTV articles sourced in the article. STATic message me! 02:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per STATic's findings; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Gong show 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources shown above meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 09:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability. Unknown person. Elmo420v (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)— Elmo420v (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Bede Scharper[edit]

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

Page reads like a resume. Page created by User:Prof2012 about a person who is a university professor? Please. I particularly like the nice Amazon links at the end of the article so you can buy his books. Recommend delete. Suttungr (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how/where this discussion proceeds (perhaps someone could guide me). But as the originator, I wish to argue for its value as a page describing a notable scholar/author on environment-social ethics and a popular TV commentator on religious, environment issues. De-link the Amazon links if need be, but the fact remains, TVO, The Agenda (an important Ontario-based news show), and CBC Tapestry (CBC radio) have him often as a panelist because of his value as a writer and scholar. He has also been nominated for "Who's Who" in Canada. Pof2012 —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS cites are 18, 7, 2. Far too low even for an indifferently cited field. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for failing WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mullaways Medical Cannabis[edit]

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

Created by company. (See creator) Creator blocked for promotional username. Creator made other promotional edit before blocked. Just promotional all around. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Relevant Media Articles" section more than demonstrates notability, but the rest of the page.... ugh. I wonder if it might be better to just delete and recreate from scratch—it looks like there could be a very interesting article buried in there. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 19:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure promotion with no encyclopedic value. None of this is supported by reliable independent sources, no could it ever be. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. I thought I'd seen some incredibly bad attempts of promotion and deception but this has to take the cake. An over the top mixture of promotion, original research, synthesis, bad references, deception and coatracks. Sources that don't verify claims. Masses of unreleated claims, vanity central. Seppedy Delete as pure promotion, and with the inflated puffery and original reseach almost as a hoax. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A perfect example of why it's too early to worry about notability when self-promotion is the problem. This business might be notable, but none of this should even be visible in history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsalvageable spam. I also note taht some of the article copied from [19] so also a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a promotion to me as well. If there is some notability to the business, then I would say feel free to recreate, but there is no way that something useful is going to come of the incarnation. Not at least without a ton of work (in which case recreating would be the best bet). Zell Faze (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a mess to sort through. I couldn't make it even a 1/4 of the way through with out having WP:ADVERT alarm bells ringing. A lot of it appears to be WP:OR despite its attempt to be well referenced. Mkdw ^talk 08:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharad Sagar[edit]

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

Student whose article seems to fail WP:BIO. Article has a large number of self referential references, and very few and low quality third party references. A Google search turns up a number of pages, but a closer examination determine that these are profile pages, not genuine third party sources and a very few newspaper articles. scope_creep 18:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BASIC, as most of the references are either his own sites or press releases. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 19:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are good enough references. Rockefeller 100, Telegraph India and many other. It's other matter that some are self pages. Also, Google search has a lot more results than personal results. Google pulls a lot of other results, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.127.226 (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. this guy is listed with creative commons (wiki licensing). all sources are reputed newspapers and the only press releases are by TUFTS UNIVERSITY and not individual. Such a reputed university's press release is as prestigious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.222.119 (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ignatzmice. Just another person in the news. 64.134.102.69 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)— 64.134.102.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Too many of the references are connected to the subject; those which are not do not amount to significant enough coverage to warrant an entry. And why are some of the claims cited by Wikipedia itself? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.Jussychoulex (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few of the references are actually about Sagar. They only mention him in passing and sometimes not at all. Despite his awards, there doesn't appear to be enough there that would seem to meet our BLP. Mkdw ^talk 08:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:DENY - as noted this batch of Survivor AfDs is a bad-faith sockvandtrollfest. Good-faith merge discussion can take place on the article talk page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Hogi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article lacks notability outside Survivor. The only thing she is remembered for is the fact that she was voted out twice on the first episode and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurvivorFanHH (talk • contribs)

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)).

Delete. Fan created article. 174.252.6.245 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)— 174.252.6.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per this SurvivorFanHH (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Strike vote by a blocked sockpuppet. Cavarrone (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Reality TV contestants are generally not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.176.124 (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC) — 174.254.176.124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. No significant info outside Survivor. 2600:1001:B00A:5157:884F:ED54:6D99:637F (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)— 2600:1001:B00A:5157:884F:ED54:6D99:637F (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per above. 64.134.102.69 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)— 64.134.102.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per all above. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very notable and vibrant African-American television personality. Already had a NC in the first nomination. WP:BIO, falls under. Just racist people trying to unsuccessfully delete the article once again. You guys make me so sick. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this has nothing to do with race. The article covers nothing outside survivor. The fact she lost twice on the first show doesn't really make her notable. 174.226.193.87 (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — 174.226.193.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to Survivor: Caramoan where her microscopic claim to fame of being voted out first in two seasons is mentioned. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. The nomination speaks for itself. Little or no significant coverage outside the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.36 (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — 69.174.58.36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect per Whpq. 18:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.100 (talk) — 72.37.171.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Redirect, hardly a known person to begin with. JacobyEasox (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)— JacobyEasox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect per above. 63.117.17.130 (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)— 63.117.17.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to Survivor: Caramoan per Whpq. Subject has no notability outside the show. 21:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.179 (talk)
Delete, No notability cited outside of Survivor, very little notability within aside from a quirk of circumstance.Jedzz (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & above. REDIRECT to Survivor: Caramoan →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For those advocating delete, is there a reason why deletion is favoured over redirecting to an article where some information is available about the subject? -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry, I think. Cavarrone (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per above. This person is only notable to Survivor fans. There is no significant information outside the show that merits her to have her own article. Chess (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Frietjes (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge if anything worthwhile is appropriately sourced. The "delete" !votes above run afoul of WP:ATD because they fail to detail why her article should be deleted when a reasonable and appropriate merge target exists. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Article focuses on her breif stay on Survivor so the contect can be merged with Survivor: Caramoan. Waveword2 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Strike vote by a blocked sockpuppet. Cavarrone (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject gained notability for her participation on the show; also this AFD is marred by banned user sockpuppet disruption. And clearly nothing has happened since the previous AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Wade (Survivor contestant) and WP:DENY. When a discussion turns in a sockpuppet fest I consider the whole process irretrievably corrupted. Given the good imputs by Whpq, JClements and others, I suggest to start a merge discussion in the related talk page. Cavarrone (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common Property Amendment[edit]

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

No RSs have been added after several years of being tagged for lack of sources. Either abandoned article, or perhaps the whole thing some editor's own personal campaign. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 14. Snotbot t • c » 17:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NewsAndEventsGuy. TimL • talk 17:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If result is "delete" also delete Seventh Generation Amendment which is just a redir created by the same ed NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a case of WP:RECENTISM. Amendments are proposed quite regularly—Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on them unless they're really notable (or actually show some possibility of being ratified). Cf. Category:Proposed amendments to the United States Constitution: some really are notable, some ain't; q.v. List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, which could probably stand some cleanup. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 22:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian entertainers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been deleted previously, it is a list of only ten people. Tiller54 (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was expecting this to be a list of people actually in Christian-focused entertainment. Instead, this is basically The Chanukah Song with actor and religion in list form, and must be sarcastic at the same time (Andy Dick, really?). Not really a proper listing and judging that most have a religion they follow, could go on forever and ever if anyone had the time to actually edit this. Nate • (chatter) 21:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nate. I was imagining something like List of Christian rock bands; this is just meaningless. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 22:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Conservapedia is thattaway... ------> Carrite (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Expanding upon the above. (1) Treats "Christian" as an unchanging characteristic, like nationality, race, or height. (2) No logical connection between the philosophy and the profession. (3) Poor-or-worse sourcing. (4) Andy Dick?!?!? Bwah-ha-ha. Carrite (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note also that this was previously considered for deletion at AfD in 2005 and ended in "Delete," with one commenter rightfully noting "Should we also start to list Italian plumbers? Jewish accountants? French dentists?" Carrite (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Although the article sucks, that is not a valid reason for deletion. Even if the article existed before, that doesn't necessarily mean the article should be deleted. It seems to me that the term "christian entertainer" is too open-ended, since the definition of both is extremely subjective. Roodog2k (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaving an article incomplete and making assumptions based on bare statements is enough of a good deletion reason. I didn't even know Tom Hanks was Catholic in the first place, but this article makes it seem like it's a big known fact.Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, stubs are "incomplete" articles, yet, they're not deleted. Actually, the whole point of Wikipedia is that it's not written in stone; essentially, every article is a living document. If the Tom Hanks statement is inaccurate, fix it. There are better reasons to delete this article. But, there are reasons to keep this article. The nominator, in my opinion, has not made a valid reason for deletion, but I can think of equal reasons to keep and delete. Roodog2k (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OK, I'll crap and get off the pot. Not a very good topic for a list. Inherently difficult to manage due to the enormous number of people who identify as Christian, which is a very subjective definition to begin with. Not all christians share the same definition of christian. Some evangelicals consider Mormons and Catholics as not Christians. Do you have to be a member of a church or congregation? Also, the term "entertainer" is too open-ended. What is an entertainer? A singer? An actor? A director? A political commentator? However... however... this would be a good candidate for a category.Roodog2k (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of psychology[edit]

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

Completely no rhyme or reason for this list. Just a random list of books and persons that editors think are relevant to psychology for various POV reasons. Not encyclopedic. TimL • talk 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be no rhyme or reason to this nomination as the nature of the article in question seems quite obvious. Rather than being arbitrary, this presents significant developments in psychology in chronological order. Other third-parties have done this too - see the BPS' timeline for example. The topic and its presentation are therefore notable and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Psychology certainly has a history, and a timeline article is an encyclopedic way of organizing that history. Most of he entries are found in any of the standard historical accounts of psychology. Edison (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with Warden that the history of psychology is highly notable and in particular timelines exist in the sources. I'll also note that this article is a perfectly fine list-based article, per WP:LIST#List articles, a timeline with almost all entries linked to one or more WP articles. A highly notable topic, sources to draw from and a well-formed article all point to unambiguously keeping this article. --Mark viking (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It appears to serve as a complement to the History of psychology article and is decently sourced. Timelines have their own standards (WP:TIMELINE) so they seem to be accepted as encyclopedic here. If there are concerns with specific entries, those can be discussed on the article's talk page. Praemonitus (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POAD[edit]

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

Hong Kong advertising company. Does not seem to meet WP:CORP. No significant coverage from independent sources. Maintained by SPAs. Funny ^Pika! 16:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Another advertising business, advertising on Wikipedia. No showing of the sort of lasting significance that would get it remembered in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. If there is smth to merge, this never harms, and after the material has been merged, it is clearly advantageous to redirect rather than delete, since it will be clear where the material is. I will apreciate some help with the merging.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FC Arsenal Kyiv Reserves and Youth Team[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN Alex (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: anything of note can be covered on the main articles for the owning teams. There's quite enough sports material on Wikipedia without providing separate coverage for farm teams. Praemonitus (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect all to relevant parent club articles. Although a Ukrainian editor, I support the nominator. Perhaps all those ~~stubs~~ standalone articles qualify for the Ukrainian Wikipedia which is my message to their author(s). Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to relevant parent club articles. Giant Snowman 20:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all, per Ukrained2012 and GS. Miniapolis 13:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Farm teams are not notable unless, for example, several of their players go on to the major leagues as a result of the coaching or experience they got on the farm. There may be other reasons for Notability as well, but not just because they exist.GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as blatant hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say Anything (video game)[edit]

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

I'm almost entirely certain this is a hoax (see WP:HOAX), though not so blatant as to require speedy deletion. The only reference provided is a Youtube link. §everal⇒|Times 16:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A definite save for my 'hilarious Wiki-hoaxes file'. 'Start screen' uploaded to YouTube yesterday and obviously, romantic comedies don't usually have video game tie-ins. Nate • (chatter) 21:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Niiiice. I especially like the "Critical reception" section. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 22:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well done, but still a hoax. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanco Caine[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Claims of notability focus on an as-yet-unreleased mixtape. References are either user-contributed, apparent press releases, or trivial. As said mixtape will be dropping next month and article creator has some hope for public response, I suggest userfication rather than outright deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This artist is a successful recording artist from the Chicago Hip Hop scene, has achieved reputable media coverage in both regional and national magazines/blogs/online news portals such as Yahoo!, Fakeshore Drive (Chicago), The Hip Hop Weekly (brother publication to The Source Magazine) and The Hype Magazine. Please give me an opportunity to dig up some historical content from published sources which which change the landscape of the bio section. Thanks for all of the help and comments with this article to dateTheurbanlink (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on the talk page: the Yahoo News source is user submitted material, the Fakeshoredrive piece is a mere 55 words introducing a music video (and thus trivial), and the HipHop Weekly and The Hype's clothing entries, well... I don't read hiphop magazines, and perhaps they do write in sheer layers of hype, but those things read a lot more like something written by the artist's promotional team than like uninvolved third party coverage. That leaves the Hype interview piece, for which only one question assumes that the interviewer had any knowledge of the artist at all, and which overall qualifies as "the musician or ensemble talks about themselves", stuff excluded from notability consideration per WP:BAND. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 23:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I review this article and peruse other artists pages I agree that perhaps I should take this out of article space and over to draft space. Although there are MANY artist articles with similar or less media coverage surrounding them, I don't want to create a sub-par article. Is there a way for me to take it out of the article space and back into draft mode rather than losing it altogether? I would appreciate that opportunity. Nat I understand that perhaps you do not read hip hop magazines and YES, there is a different flavor to the writing with those outlets. I would point out however, that the hip hop magazines ARE the bible for the global hip hop community and therefore have much more impact on the entertainment industry as a whole than would say Chicago Sun Times. Standard tier 1 media, i.e., WSJ, LA Times, Forbes, have almost zero importance in the hip hop world or urban music community at-large.

It is not my intention to disrespect anyone or their experience I would just humbly suggest that the editor's of Wikipedia expand their knowledge of what is important media coverage outside of the standard, Time, People, Rollingstone, etc. when classifying media status. Thank you for all your work Nat and attempts to assist me in finding more relevant outside resources.Theurbanlink (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not putting down the indicative value of The Hype or Hip Hop Weekly, but rather addressing the individual articles, which at least by sniff test appear to be press releases... and, doing further research, not without reason, as you can see the The Hype material here labeled as a press release. Wikipedia standards say that press releases, even when reposted or even reworked by significant sites, do not add to notability. A press release posted at Forbes.com would get the same treatment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much for your patient explanations, they are much appreciated. I understand that press releases are not solid source documents now. I WOULD point out however, that press releases are how many media outlets get their information for articles and use those pieces as the editorial content for their stories. I as a writer, receive press release material from Associated Press, UPI, PRNewswire, etc., and if you see a syndicated story that has the insert (Associated Press), that is material from a press release and is utilized to syndicate stories across the globe with the same content. But as I said in a previous posting here, if there is a way to take the article back to the draft stage, I would be happy to flesh it out according to your great explanations so that it is a fit for Wikipedia. I want to do things right and not do anything to weaken the Wikipedia brand and I want to grow as a solid contributor to Wikipedia. I have no personal attachment to the article or person addressed within, I felt as a journalist, this person was worthy of coverage and inclusion and that his media coverage within the entertainment media community was notable enough...I was wrong. RespectfullyTheurbanlink (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, The Hype cannot be considered an independent source on Blanco Caine, because The Hype lists Caine as one of their "clients", on on-site banners that go to this page. -Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - The original author indicates a willingness to improve this article which is not suitable for Wikipedia. Given the impending release of material that may generate some coverage, userfication seems appropriate in this instance. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not userfy. Just like User:Jdobypr User:Theurbanlink is a PR account trying to use wikipedia for promotion. See [[20]] for Blanco Caine and [21] For Edubb, the other band this editor is trying to promote. See theurbanlink.net for the link to jdobypr. Blatant corporate spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been pushed beyond my ability to WP:AGF and hereby withdraw my suggestion that this be userfied.-Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any potential sources that demonstrate notability. As has been pointed out the sources are all press releases which appear to have been written by Theurbanlink themselves: [22]. It's close to being G11 material to be honest. SmartSE (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NMUSIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Octāves[edit]

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

Non-notable college a capella group. No third party sources, which are required under Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Does not meet alternate guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria musicians and ensembles. GrapedApe (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, student club at a single school. Doesn't pass WP:ORG or WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well established but no notability at all. scope_creep (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TB randley 16:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

River Coruisk[edit]

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

Article's only source is an Answers.com link; no other sources available to confirm the purpose of the article which is that it "may be the smallest river in the United Kingdom". — Cargoking talk 15:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the river is notable in any case, irrespective of crap referencing. Poorly written and referenced content is never a solid base on which to propose deletion. Simply remove the rubbish content. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added two references using Google Books, a resource which could have been used before making this AfD nomination. AllyD (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can find it in Google Maps. scope_creep (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per WP:NGEO, but the references I saw all refer to this as River Scavaig; should the article be moved/renamed?--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its existence and short length is easily verifiable from the OS maps. Though the OS maps name it Scavaig River, that seems to be the most common name, so I think it should be moved. --Vclaw (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2012 United States Presidential election YouTube parodies. J04n(talk page) 16:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Style[edit]

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

Non notable parody Lester Foster (talk | talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:GNG. It got some run of the mill coverage the week it was released, then quickly forgotten. No lasting notability of any kind. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 15:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 United States Presidential election YouTube parodies . While it is not so common, everyday,and ordinary an item to be run-ofthe-mill, it does make sense that we at least send readers to where they might learn of this and other such parodies. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Michael.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Michael. It does get a decent amount of hits. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 23:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources showing from Time magazine, CBS DC, and UPI.com dealing substantially with the subject of this article — which is the textbook definition of a pass according to our General Notability Guideline. A redirect implies the loss of information; there might be some case for a Merge — but I believe that Keep is the correct call here under our guidelines and policies. Carrite (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The simpler term "Obama Style" is a poor search parameter since it has been used by media for many years in reference to other aspects of that presidency... and as this parody video was released just last September, I thus tighten the search paramaters. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge and redirect per Michael ~~to Gangnam Style in popular culture #Parodies and reaction videos~~. ~~Is that a better redirect choice?~~ We could trim whatever's useful here and leave out the Infobox. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... right now just one sentence at that suggested target. My own thought is that it would be fine to speak of the Obama parody video as part of the main topic topic discussed at both suggested redirect targets just as it spoken of in the article about impersonator Reggie Brown... but as the main focus of the parody music video is about Obama's style as president and not about the Gangnam music style, I feel a better redirect (& partial merge) would be to the article focusing on various presidential parodies. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable! Changed my !vote to a different target. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Beede[edit]

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

Same case that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Cottonwood and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Novak. She was under one year in WWE farm territory and a few months in NXT. After his release, she retired. I think that, in her short career in wrestling, she didn't was notable, like Novak and Cottonwood. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear and obvious notability problems as pointed out by HHH.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable from time spent with WWE, even if it was relatively short. Tiller54 (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject in every way, and since WWE people are simply a different kind of actor, they're distinct from WP:ATHLETE. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trilingo[edit]

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

BLP without reliable sources. Selfpromo? Linkfarm. The Banner talk 13:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. I found zero coverage. It's pretty clearly promotion by an WP:SPA, likely the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 18:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSIC. — sparklism ^hey! 09:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal–Papua New Guinea relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. all there is to this relations is diplomatic relations. Which can be covered in 1 line in their foreign relations articles. No ongoing high level visits, trade, diplomatic incidents. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found this quite interesting as the two countries are teaming up in present phase, something to follow. As per linkages, there are issues relating to migration of Nepalese citizens transiting through PNG en route to Australia. --Soman (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason to keep. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the references says anything about Nepalese citizens entering Australia via PNG, which sounds highly unlikely to be occurring. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single meeting between public servants in a third country after decades of independence for both countries is not a notable international relationship. WP:NOTNEWS also seems to apply. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As fascinating as these countries' relations could be, their diplomatic links are just too fresh to write an article about anything beyond the mere fact that they exist since April 12, 2013. In a few years, perhaps. Iketsi (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. The inclusion standard suggested by the relevant Wikiproject is that articles should exist about bilateral relations only if they have been engaged in a war, a major trade or diplomatic dispute, if they share a border, have formed an alliance, have significant trade, etc. This doesn't seem to match the criteria, and if a line has to be drawn on the notability of bilateral relations, it should be applied consistently. TheBlueCanoe 23:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cred24[edit]

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

Definitely fails WP:GNG, the three sources are simply three different web directories containing a brief self-description of the website. Vituzzu (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, a search for various sources results in no news, and no third-party sources for this company at all. Some minor primary sources read using Google Translate, but do not support GNG, even if they were assumed to be reliable.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lovende[edit]

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

Crosswiki spam about a small company which definitely fails WP:GNG, please note two of the three sources are ads (belonging to the same SEO-network) while the third one is a simple online selling sites aggregator. Vituzzu (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say that as written it would probably be speediable as it asserts absolutely no notability at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom. scope_creep (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy delete. I don't see anything more than an assertion of existence here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Lars restaurant[edit]

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

This article is about a restaurant. It is not clear that the restaurant is notable and the article is very poorly organized and is rife with errors. I am nominating it for deletion specifically to clear up the question of notability. Dusty|💬|You can help! 19:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have added eight new articles to prove notability. St. Lars is one of Norway's most famous restaurants. It is interesting with it's unique take on food (everything goes on the custom made grill) and produce (horse, bear and the like). And the mix of three very different and prominent owners - world know tv-host, venture capitalist and Grammy-winning producer, makes it highly relevant and notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanphil (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Lars is probably Norway's most important new restaurant (Maemo aside) the last five years. Always controversial, always good reviews and always in the news. All famous Norwegians eat there. Even international celebrities like Rihanna (friend of the owner Tor Erik Hermansen) have been spotted there. Entotrefir (talk

I agree with Leanphil and Entotrefir. St. Lars is really something totally different. Viestad and Hermansen are both Norwegian celebrities with an international following and the restaurant with the custom made grill is extraordinary. Not to mention the produce of horse and bear which you cant get anywhere elseJohansveno1984 (talk) . —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Norway. St. Lars is definitely notable. Fantastic food and very high-end clientele and media profile. The article also seems very well sourced. StkSE13 (talk) . —Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:N. Source examples include: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I travel to Norway occasionally and Lars is a very special place indeed. I've never managed to get there, but my clients keep promising...Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that the links provided by user:Whytestone demonstrate sufficient coverage for notability. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Navidi[edit]

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

Basically a resume, but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. Main article contributor User:Whytestone is a single-purpose account. bender235 (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article's content does not include items which meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The links are casual mentions of this person, and not content focused on this person. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is more talk with the creator on my talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article creator user:Whytestone has pointed out below in this AfD discussion that reliable sources have featured the subject of this article as the subject of their journalism. This coverage constitutes the meeting of WP:NBIO because this person has been the subject of multiple third-party publications. The article still uses some sources which are financially tied to this article's subject, but I am satisfied that several good sources exist. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Delete (without prejudice for future). The subject of the article may very well meet Wikipedia's notability criteria in the future, but does not appear to do so at present. The references which might appear to indicate notability are mainly brief mentions, for instance the reference to the usual acknowledgements in a book listing all the people the author would like to thank. This is mainly counter-productive; it would be easier to check notability if all the minor references and peacockery were removed. --Boson (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed my opinion to "weak keep". Though I don't think the subject clearly satisfies WP:GNG, in that the person has not obviously "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I think there is borderline justification for applying WP:Academic (". . . may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature . . ." and "the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area"). She has clearly been frequently interviewed on television etc. in her capacity as an expert. With the promotional elements removed, I think the encyclopedia benefits from having an article on this person; so I think there is a case for interpreting the rules generously. --Boson (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's simply a curriculum of a person who appeared sometimes on TV. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This Wikipedia article is specifically mentioned in this piece with the subject implicitly labelled as a self-promoter. Important notability claims remain unsourced in the article, for example:

Navidi frequently appears as a keynote speaker and panelist all over the world - one reference to an AXA roadshow where she was a guest speaker
She frequently appears as an expert in international media outlets and as a guest speaker at various events. - no reference
She has been interviewed on ARD, ZDF,Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR), Bayrischer Rundfunk, n-tv, Arte TV, Deutsches Anlegerfernsehen, CNBC, Fox Business, CCTV China, Phoenix TV China and Voice of America - Unreferenced list of television appearances linked only to channels

The only sourced notability claim is to appearing on Wall Street Warriors, a programme formerly broadcast on "Mojo HD". It seems she appeared in up to 6 episodes in 2006. The source given with the 2012 appearance is just a page with an embedded YouTube video. It's difficult to judge the reliability of these two German sources but there's certainly not significant coverage of the subject. The Career section is pure puffery.

Of course, lack of sources isn't a reason for deletion but the subject clearly has not recieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, thus failing WP:BIO. The academic claim above is not applicable, per the subject not meeting any of the criteria of WP:PROF, or making any claim of research or academic credentials. I urge the creator to review WP:NOTPROMOTION Jebus989 ^✰ 15:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hardly know the person. 108.12.134.72 (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just reviewed the notability criteria for biographies. One acceptable criteria is that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". I have these sources which are directly about Navidi. Here are three examples (taken from the External links section)

DLDwomen Magazine at issuu.com

Interview by Larry Parks (Larry Parks bio on page 3)

Der Westen - Die Schöne und das Geld (German)

On the adjoining talk page I elaborated more fully on the specific concerns voiced by other Wikipedians on this page, and answered the concerns they've raised.. Whytestone (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC) — Whytestone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, per links supplied by User:Whytestone. Good enough to get her over the WP:GNG line in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Fenton[edit]

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

Article asserts subject is

author
historian
public speaker
radio personality specializing in 1960’s and 1970’s music.

What is verifiable is that subject of the article has written two self-published books. That's all. Fails any number of notability guidelines. Shirt58 (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's 1960s and 1970s, not 1960's and 1970's. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's done a little bit of everything and it's all added up to not much. Qworty (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wipaire[edit]

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

non-notable company. The Banner talk 10:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk)

18:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Company is notable in the field of floatplanes. In any article about lightplanes using floats during the latter half of the 20th century, there was a good chance that either Edo or Wipaire was mentioned. There were other float suppliers during those years, of course, but Wipaire was a significant presence. It deserves an article; that is why I created one when I learned that neither the company's founder nor the company was in Wikipedia. Thanks. --Spray787 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WIPAIRE

This company is presently one of the largest aircraft-float manufacturers in the United States. Its product line ([28]) runs the gamut from LSA to Twin Otter. Definitely notable. --Spray787 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is a significant company in the history of aviation, and a quick gBooks search turns up quite a bit of information - [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Also gNews: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], and more. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep - This is a well-known company in US aviation. Does not warrant deletion on notability guidelines. Breadblade (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the sources Bushranger found, I'm inclined to keep for a number of reasons, but mostly GNG. Mkdw ^talk 09:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UNregular Radio[edit]

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

Not notable internet radio station. Looks like advertising. The Banner talk 09:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to decide what is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.233.55 (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on making this article sound like less of an ad.Rawisrob (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dearth of refs (no non-SPS) for a contemporary online radio station, fails GNG. czar · · 05:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG nor does it enjoy the notability of broadcast radio/TV stations under WP:NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fyreball[edit]

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

Article on an obscure startup which failed over 5 years ago, which is included in a single category which has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Devoid of any notability and relevance. Mecanismo | Talk 09:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been created and maintained either by non-registered users or accounts whose single purpose was to maintain this article and link it to other articles on wikipedia. Appears to be spam for a defunct startup. -- Mecanismo | Talk 09:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This tale about the rise and fall of an online business underlines why history making accomplishments, or at least notoriety, should be needed before any commercial enterprise becomes an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Convey Computer, merge Hybrid-core computing. This one is a bit difficult since this is a double nomination, and not all voters explicitly mentioned what article they are talking about. Still, the two voters who said smth about Convey Computer agree that it does not obey the notability policies; hence, it is deleted. For Hybrid-core computing, there is no ambiguous consensus, and merging into Heterogeneous computing seems to be the decision closest to consensus: All information is retained, and if ever this technology becomes notable or sources appear sufficiently demonstrating notability it can be restored.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid-core computing[edit]

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

No sources for term, seems to be an advert. (Content seems already covered by heterogeneous computing, a marketing/proprietary fork of that article by a WP:SPA / WP:COI creator.)

I am also nominating the following related page:

No independent source for company, advert. Widefox; talk 15:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a mo\re thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Heterogeneous computing. Hybrid core technology is notable and will likely become important, but it's probably best to cover the topic in one article. As for Convey Computer, well there's at least one IEEE paper on the company's product[40] and it is mentioned in several others. Probably notable. Praemonitus (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is a primary source for the product (so could be added to the Hybrid-core computing) and doesn't tell us anything about the company, we need secondaries for notability for both. Widefox; talk 13:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least Merge The article needs more meat, more examples, and something about its downsides (it sounds to me like the implementation would create a lot of incompatibilities). But it seems to me to be a valid concept in computer science. Listmeister (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. All edits of the creator are promoting the same product. Adblock2 (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Hybrid-core computing to Heterogeneous computing, per Praemonitus they are best covered in one topic. No opinion about the company. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. smells of marketing--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Hybrid core computing is completely different really from Heterogeneous computing as a subject. Heterogeneous computing covers the whole gamut of computing as it stands processes, products, hardware, software. Hybrid core systems is a computing architecture that is new, but is becoming increasingly common. One early example is the current range of Intel Ivy Bridge processors which combine multiple GPU and CPU's cores. Other newer examples combine ASIC's with CPU to accelerate specific software types like High-performance computing. As regards the article itself, it certainly has plenty of WP:POTENTIAL and there is numerous sources in Google Books and Google Scholar. scope_creep (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for that, or is it wp:or? A quick wp:rs check didn't find the term used for Ivy Bridge, which is listed as Heterogeneous computing (which questions your assertion they are mutually exclusive). ...You've started me off now..."Hybrid" is used as a marketing wp:peacock term (for instance the notable "hybrid kernel"). What's the real definition of this wp:neologism, there's no reference?, and I don't have a wp:crystal! Widefox; talk 13:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Hybrid-core computing with Heterogenous computing per WP:CONTENTFORK, delete Convey Computer per WP:SPAM. Miniapolis 20:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMD high school[edit]

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

Fails notability as per WP:ORG. I conducted an Internet search and found nothing but Facebook pages and Tumblr results. No one notable has ever graduated from here, nothing notable appears to have ever taken place here, and there appears to be no coverage in any media by any reliable third-party sources anywhere to be found. The preponderance is evidence is that there is a lack of evidence of notability, and so despite the policy set out in WP:NHS, I propose that the article be removed. KDS4444^Talk 07:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"despite the policy set out in WP:NHS..." That's an essay, not a policy, not even a guideline. Even so, it clearly says "Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards."-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"An unsourced article on a school, or an article on a school without enough content for a rounded article, should not have its own page." -- from WP:All high schools can be notable KDS4444^Talk 07:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, it doesn't pass ORG. There are a couple of passing mentions in this book but no real coverage that I can find. It's basically the same situation as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAPS International High, which was kept, against all guidelines. Hope this one doesn't turn out the same way. _{In before someone says "Systemic bias" or "WP:OUTCOMES". :P} -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. Appears to exist and a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've told you before, existence is not notability and no guidelines or policies confirm your assertion that all secondary schools are automatically notable. Please address this specific school's notability by citing specific sources which discuss it.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've told you before, no amount of verbiage on your part is going to change the fact that articles on high schools are going to be kept! You may as well turn your attention to more useful pursuits than arguing against consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please show me the discussion where this consensus was established.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the hundreds of previous AfD discussions on secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've always voted to keep large institutions. They are used by 100's of folk every day and that makes them notable. scope_creep (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, this nomination is deeply flawed. The nominator claims to have conducted an "internet search", didn't find sources readily at hand on a computer screen, and thereby concludes that the the school isn't notable. The nominator fails to mention which languages were used in that search. The common languages spoken in Srinagar are Kashmiri and Urdu. I would expect that the nominator would inform us that in-depth searches had been performed in Kashmiri and Urdu. But no. Nominator relies on the essay WP:All high schools can be notable but ignores the heart of the second paragraph:

"However, outside the Anglosphere, particularly for countries in Asia and Africa, Internet coverage is very poor. Where this is the case then, to avoid systemic bias, local sources should be sought. This may involve researching local media, for example at a neighboring library."

We all know that reliable sources need not be readily available online. So, I ask the nominator, has a paper search been conducted in a library or perhaps a newspaper archive in or near Srinagar as recommended by the very essay you cited? Atlantima, ~~who is very eager to see an article about a secondary school deleted,~~ has jumped in quickly before anyone else (such as a guy like me) has the opportunity to mention WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. So be it. However, systemic bias was mentioned in the essay that the nominator used in the argument to delete, so I consider mentioning it fair game. I believe that every single editor of this encyclopedia has the obligation to try to avoid systemic bias, because that bias is an insidious enemy of our goal of developing a comprehensive and neutral worldwide information resource. The nominator also writes "No one notable has ever graduated from here, nothing notable appears to have ever taken place here". What does this have to do with whether or not an article about a secondary school should be kept? Is the nominator arguing that secondary schools inherit notability from notable graduates, or that the school would be notable if only some notable event (I can't imagine what) had occurred there? I am tempted to oppose this nomination solely on the procedural ground that the nomination itself is fatally flawed. But the flaws speak for themselves. Instead, I will advance the argument that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an exceptionally useful rule of thumb, that it accurately describes and summarizes our working consensus over quite a few years, and that it keeps this type of debate to a minimum. Articles about the vast majority of secondary schools are in, and we work to expand them and reference them as time goes by. Articles about the vast majority of primary schools are out. Done deal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "eager to see an article about a secondary school deleted". That statement seems to come very close to a personal attack on me. I'm simply trying to enforce the notability guidelines. It just so happens that secondary schools are routinely given exemption from those guidelines for no clear reason. No guideline or policy says that we should counter systemic bias by lowering our standards for proof of notability. -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there's your problem. Notability guidelines are not "enforced". They're guidelines. Nothing more. Your attempts to act as some sort of unofficial enforcer for something which does not need enforcing are getting you nowhere. You are mistaking Wikipedia for some sort of monolithic bureaucracy, which it isn't and never has been. We work by consensus. How many high school articles can you show us that have been deleted at AfD? See? That's consensus! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was originally to going to vote to delete, though reading Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) has swayed me on this one. I think notability can be demonstrated, but the article's creator has simply failed to do so up till now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:But there must be sources!: We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable. Unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantima, I have struck out the comment you didn't like. I am not criticizing you as an individual; I am disagreeing with you on this particular issue. As a matter of fact, I consider healthy disagreement at AfD to be an essential part of the process of developing a more nuanced understanding of consensus, and I respect your input.

You yourself pointed out that this school is mentioned in the English language source "The Indian Geographical Journal" from 1934. It is also discussed briefly in another English language source, a 2002 newspaper article in The Tribune, called Heavy polling at Salahuddin’s village, where it is reported that this high school functions as an election polling station. This tells us that the school had been in existence for at least 68 years. Of course, I wish that we had more source material readily available in English. But no one, so far, has reported searching for sources in Kashmiri or Urdu, the languages of Srinigar. I consider these two sources to be enough, for now, for a brief stub on the school, which can be expanded in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well written enough to be kept. 108.12.134.72 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See school 32 at Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education which says the school is located in/near Soura.
SBaker43 (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Students for Justice in Palestine. Redirecting instead of deleting, as redirects are cheap and there may be some information here that can be salvaged. Any sourced information that was contained in the article can of course be merged back into Students for Justice in Palestine. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Student activism in the BDS movement[edit]

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

there are so many things wrong with this page! it begins with a patently false statement - no such merger has occured. it appears that this page was created as Wikipedia:Content forking, and interestingly enough, none of the criticisms didn't make the move when the editor created the split. (i have no problem in reintroducing some of the material on their appropriate pages.) Soosim (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Information can be merged into another article, if found credible. Z554 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Back into Students for Justice in Palestine and [added later per editor below: and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and delete article. That's where the material was and was removed without discussion. Then correct any problems with sources or interpretations of sources, etc. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we keep this, it really will need to be renamed to avoid confusion; I thought that it was something about students involved in BDSM advocacy. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge) per above. If merged, needs to be edited to remove the bias that is apparent in the first sentence. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant sections into Students for Justice in Palestine and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and delete article. Some of this belongs on the SJP page, and any general unique characteristics this article attributes to student BDS activism can go on the BDS page, as well as a few exemplary student BDS actions, so as to make the BDS article more comprehensive. As others have mentioned, there are inaccuracies even in the lead: "The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement has been led by student activists on college campuses. Campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) have prominently sponsored action in universities." In truth, student BDS activism is but a part of the international BDS movement which incorporates segments from all strata and sections of society, and it's essentially impossible to qualify or quantify which of these segments "leads" the BDS movement (especially since BDS is more of a strategy with constantly-evolving tactics than it is a "movement" as such), and, strictly speaking, if there is a "leader" of the BDS movement, it is the aggregate of persons and organizations from within Palestinian civil society from whom the 2005 BDS call originated. There's no "leader" in either a hierarchical sense or an understanding based on impact or effect. As to the second sentence in the lead, this has been brought up before in other discussions, but SJP doesn't really have "chapters", as SJP as an organization is completely decentralized and lacks any sort of regional, national, or international hierarchy (though some have amusingly tried to impose such a structure upon SJP). I realize these are more nitpicks than cogent defense of my suggestion to merge, but I think these issues speak to the greater problem with this article: what little content included in it isn't directly copied from other pages would likely have to be cut anyway for being factually incorrect, misleading, or at least lacking in a reliable source. Direct action (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has no independent notability. Anything that is relevant in the article (and there are serious RS problems on the page) belongs in the Students for Justice in Palestine article.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. The article Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions does not meet WP:TOOLONG, as such as the subject of this AfD falls within the scope of the article Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, a summarization of verifiable content and merger of that content to the parent article appears to be in order, with a redirect left in this space. If the parent article meets SIZELIMIT in the future a consensus on that article talk page can determine what part of that article can be spunoff as a subarticle.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral County Technical Center[edit]

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

Non-notable training establishment. Being the "the oldest operating technical center in WV" does not cut it for me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the article does not (yet) have a formal deletion page. Appears to fail to meet any notability criteria. KDS4444^Talk 08:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the formal deletionnpage? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete Seems to an obscure wee college. Clearly non-notable, fails WP:ORG. scope_creep (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

KEEP Appears to be an existing vo-tech school. Notable for West Virginia. Listed on the state Department of Education website. It is an accredited institution. Z554 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so but it still has insufficient notability for WP. High schools are deemed notable but training establishments are not necessarily notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Changed my entry as I know believe it's notable. When I started Wikipedia any high school wasn't notable and now they are. This article should be kept. scope_creep (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Deadbeef (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Awards[edit]

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

Unremarkable, unreferenced awards page, which is hosted by an organization that is redlinked. Does not meet WP:GNG. Deadbeef (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. It appears that I gave it too cursory a look for sources when I nominated this article; my regards to the users below. The first page of Google results can be deceptive of notability. I'll try to expand it when I can find time to sit down and go through it. Deadbeef (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a few possible mentions of notability: [41], [42], [43]. Samwalton9 (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and tag for easy-to-do improvement and sourcing.[44] And toward the nominator's waxing about a redlink, we have an article on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and it would seem reasonable in building an encyclopedia that we also encourage the creation of the British Columbia offshoot[45][46] and its notable awards.[47] Notable to Canada, with coverage world-wide, is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valuable encyclopedic knowledge. Certainly the article needs work, referenced for instance. It's a substantial award, recognising the BC industry, so is clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Samir (footballer born 1994)[edit]

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

Contested PROD on the grounds "premier league in country", but original rationale, Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league or at senior international level, is true and the article should be deleted. C 679 06:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 06:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of diver training organizations[edit]

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

This article has deteriorated into a list of names and weblinks of any organisation that offers dive training, and Wikipedia is not a directory. The selection criteria for this list is simply too imprecise to keep out spammers and the list no longer has encyclopedic value. RexxS (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything raised in your deletion rationale except for cleanup and maintenance issues. Those are not valid grounds for deletion; see WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. And the selection criteria could simply be "merits an article", as it is with most lists of X where most examples of X are not notable. postdlf (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current title allows a huge number of non-notable organisations on the grounds that they are organised groups of people and that they train divers. Virtually every dive shop, dive school and dive club in the world fits this requirement.

What criterion for notability would we apply in this case?

A more exclusive criterion would be diver certification organisations which independently issue diver certification recognised by at least one other notable organisation. The organisations currently listed are mostly in this category. I suspect that this was the original intention for the list, but the name was not well chosen, and no conditions for inclusion were provided. A better name for the article might be 'List of diver certification organisations • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What criterion? Simply, "does this merit an article"? For which we have WP:ORG and WP:GNG (probably nothing more subject-specific) to guide us in that determination. If it already has an article, then it obviously goes in, and judging from Category:Underwater diving training organizations it looks like there are plenty of articles on individual orgs. If it's a redlink, then we remove it if there's no reason to believe it should have an article based on available secondary sources. This is not a new problem or one unique to this list. We do this all the time.
And it's simply a matter of style choice that the title does not include "notable" as a limitation; the omission of that does not legally bind us to literally include all training organizations that exist. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#List naming: "[T]he precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title. For instance, words like 'complete,' 'famous' and 'notable' are normally excluded from list titles. Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles)." postdlf (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you are mistaken, Postdlf. "Has a Wikipedia article" is not an acceptable list inclusion criterion for anything other than navigation pages. If the article is to be a list of diver certifying agencies, then there are grounds for the maintenance you suggest - although I don't see that you've made any attempt to do the maintenance yourself, otherwise I guess you would have realised how difficult it is to work out, for example, whether SNSI in Italy is actually a certifying agency, considering that the article is essentially free of any references that would help decide that point. As it stands, it is a spam magnet and continual clean-up is not a productive use of dwindling editor resources. --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a navigational list in as much as it lists articles by a fact their subjects share in common, complementary to Category:Underwater diving training organizations. If an organization's status as such cannot be verified, then it should not only not be in the list, but also not be in that category (and its notability would be questionable if such basic info is not available in any RS). Verifying individual entries is, again, a clean up issue, as there are no doubt notable orgs for which that fact can be verified. BTW, I assume you meant to treat "training" and "certification" synonymously here, but it would be more clear to stick to the term the list uses. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't a navigational list. The only ones that exist outside of category space are disambiguation pages. Don't get confused with the requirements for what needs to be included in a category - that properly only includes Wikipedia pages. A "diver training organisation" may be taken to be an organisation that delivers diver training and there are thousands of dive shops, dive centres and dive clubs that do that. It's simply too broad for a sustainable list. You also assume wrongly: Diver certification is a process defined by a diver certification agency which has to meet certain agreed standards in most jurisdictions world-wide; Diver training is the process undergone by a trainee diver in order to receive a certification. The number of agencies that set the certification process is relatively small; the number of outlets that are licensed to carry out the training is legion. And therein lies the problem with this article. --RexxS (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Care to tell us where you got the idea that the only "navigational lists" in article space are disambiguation pages? See WP:LISTPURP, which explains that navigation between related articles is one of the main functions lists perform.
I've also already addressed above the incorrect notion that this list is somehow obligated to include the "thousands" of such organizations, just because they exist; the truth is that we can limit it to only organizations that merit articles and we do this routinely with lists. Whether you want this list to include "training organizations", as it and its corresponding category presently do, or "certifying organizations" is a separate issue and not an AFD concern, one you can deal with through normal editing and discussion).
I also don't know where you got the idea that the list cannot have the same inclusion criteria as the category; WP:CLN tells us the exact opposite, that they are complementary methods of organization. We could decide that a list and a category of the same name have different selection criteria, if we see some value in including non-notable entries for example, or we could decide that a list be limited to notable entries only and so have only the articles that go in the corresponding category. postdlf (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main purpose of stand-alone lists is to provide information, not navigation - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. Here's the list of Featured Lists - please feel free to point out to me the ones that are navigation lists. This article is a stand-alone list. It has a clear description in the lead of what it contains: "This page lists SCUBA diver training organizations". The article on diver training states "Competent diving instructors may work independently or through a university, a dive club, a dive school or a dive shop. They will offer courses that meet, or exceed, the standards of the certification organization that they work with. Many dive shops in popular holiday locations offer courses that try to teach you to dive in a few days, and can be combined with your vacation". So yes, universities, dive clubs, dive schools and dive shops may be diver training organisations, and tens of thousands of them are eligible for this article as it stands. As you already know, subjects that are not notable are just as acceptable as entries in lists, which is why we don't use "Has a Wikipedia article" as the inclusion criterion. In any case, this article already has masses of entries that fit the current selection criteria (and potentially many thousands more). If you want to change the selection criteria to something useful (and "Has a Wikipedia article" isn't - because of the Western ethnocentric bias in en-wp), then please tell us how to trim the current list to fit your new criteria for "List of diver training organizations" at the same time. If it was that easy, it would have been done by now. --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments continue to suggest that you still haven't read or understood WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN regarding the navigational function of lists, but whatever. As you asked, I looked through the list of Featured Lists, and the FL List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A (among a few others in the same alpha-divided series) would be seen by most editors as primarily a navigational list. It is an annotated index of articles and articles only (i.e., "has a Wikipedia article" as the only inclusion criteria for which verified GLB people to include) subdivided alphabetically for convenience. postdlf (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read them, and I understand - although you seem not to - that they don't represent the reality of lists on Wikipedia, as I've tried to explain to you. You see a list like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A with a relatively full lead and each entry having birth & death dates, nationality, notability, notes and a reference ("annotations"!!); and you suggest it is "seen by most editors as primarily a navigational list" - and that was the best you can do? We obviously aren't likely to have much common ground, are we? Nevertheless, in the interest of finding consensus, I'll cheerfully concede that a "List of famous X" will almost certainly contain only entries that have a Wikipedia article, and "List of notable X" will always fit that bill, even when they are not navigational. But does that help us with "List of diver training organizations"? Are you suggesting that we retrospectively change the selection criterion to be "notable diver training organizations", and chop out all the ones that don't have a Wikipedia article? --RexxS (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to be deleted, what do we do with the useful information?

One possibility is merge into an article titled Diver training and certification or something similar. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a stub Diving certification, which is a redirect from Diver certification (possibly a better title) which might serve. Diver certification agencies is a redirect to List of diver training organizations, and would also be a better title. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information is never lost, but it may be better to write the article you suggest, Peter, with an accurate title and manageable inclusion criteria. That would also allow the possibility of this list becoming a redirect to such an article rather that just being deleted. --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about a Smerge? Bearian (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I appreciate nom's concerns. Left alone one of three things will happen. (A) someone will set a limiting criterion and trim the list back. (B) Someone will set a limiting criterion, but not trim the list back, so that it will grow, but only slowly. (C) It will get parsed out by geographically, and you'll have pages like "List of diver training organizations in Australia." All three outcomes would be enough of an improvement. I don't see a need to delete the page as it currently is, and potential spamability, while a concern, is not a criterion for deletion. Listmeister (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be kept. It's a standard list article, which is aide to navigation. The worries about quality control and spam are misplaced. The normal WP quality control processes will keep the list in order. I would certainly remove the URL's at the end of each entry as they incite advertisement, which is not the WP way. scope_creep (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my above comments, which scope_creep also summarizes concisely. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per scope_creep. The URL's definitely need to be either cleaned up or removed. -- Cheers, Riley 19:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can see a consensus to keep and radically clean up the article. Rather than let this run too long, I would be content to withdraw the nomination, even though I expect it will be left to me to carry out the maintenance that the other contributors to this debate have suggested. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. --RexxS (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RoboLaw[edit]

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

This article should never have been accepted at AfC. It's a two-year project funded by the EU, though you'd never guess it from the article (see the history for more verbosity copied directly from the Request for Funding). Lack of references is obviously, lack of Google News hits makes it clear that this is not a notable thing. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I agree with the analysis by Drmies, who does his homework. I am wondering how an article can wend its way through AfC without the article containing a single reference to a reliable, independent source? Are some of our AfC reviewers lacking a clue? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that an OTRS notice permits a chunk of text to be copied does not imply that it should be copied, especially when it is as indigestably non-encyclopaedic as this. However, while I'm tending to deletion on this rather typical looking EU FP article, I did find this article from The Economist (via Highbeam, sub reqd). AllyD (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC) There is also this piece from Wired. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cullen: yes, unfortunately. Good will is required to be working at AfC, as you probably know, and sometimes there's a bit much of it. AllyD, well spotted--thanks. But I don't think that "two articles and it's notable" is a good rule; what the Wired article will give us is a couple of nicely verified sentences in a main article. Don't feel like you can't vote delete cause you found two sources. :) Drmies (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, per nom. AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. scope_creep (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't spot any notability here using a UK Google perspective. I don't have full access to AllyD's perspective but what I've seen looks very, very thin and I am inclined to think that Drmies is correct in his response. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The Wired article and the Economist (I have Highbeam access) are both substantial coverage. Although I agree with that notability is not established by simply counting to two, in this case both the sources are beefy enough for me to say it squeaks past. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This decision does not prevent the possibility of a proper merge discussion on the appropriate talkpages. J04n(talk page) 16:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colossal Connection[edit]

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

I don't feel the team established any individual notability apart from the notability established by the The Heenan Family. I feel that most of the relevant information is already there which means this article is unneeded. Feedback ^☎ 04:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. I don't know what's going on with all the recent deletion proposals for wrestling tag teams, but deletion is not the proper way to handle them. The tag names are likely search terms, so if it's true that the article is not needed, then the proper solution is to merge the content and redirect the title to the article that covers it - i.e. this should be merge proposals, not at AfD. In his case it's not true that The Heenan Family contains the same information; the history section and references for the Colossal Connection are not there. Diego (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The information is not in The Heenan Family, bar for one measly sentence. I'm also against a merger, which would have been a more appropriate suggestion. The Colossal Connection worked with Heenan for a short period of time in the scheme of The Heenan Family's entire existence (which was over 20 years). Even with this in mind, The Colossal Connection lasted a year, had some high profile feuds, and won the titles. Although Heenan was their manager, thus making them technically part of the Heenan family, their accomplishments stand on their own. I'm not sure what more notability you could ask for.LM2000 (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and warn user about disruptive nominations - Notability is clearly established through reliable secondary sources, and team is obviously notable on its own. Tag team champions, who are the subject of sufficient coverage, need more than a single sentence in a larger article. This article can certainly be expanded, but deleting or merging is ridiculous. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm abstaining from this, but I want to point out that the team was only in existence for a few months, not a year. It was formed not long after the Survivor Series in 1989 to replace the Brainbusters who had left the promotion, and split up at Wrestlemania in 1990. BerleT (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They formed in April 1989 and broke up after Wrestlemania 6 in April 1990. Their title reign alone lasted nearly 4 months. Either way longevity is only part of their notability, with or without it they still fit WP:GNG as Gary Coleman pointed out.-LM2000 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No they did not form in April 1989. They formed in November. Andre was fighting for the intercontinental title between Summerslam and Survivor Series, and before Summerslam he was feuding with Big John Studd. BerleT (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A18 (band)[edit]

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

Not notable, does not seem to pass WP:NBAND (unless the listed labels are major, which they do not seem to be) Uberaccount (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Deadbeef (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sorry, but the subject of the article fails to meet the spirit of WP:NBAND by a long way. It also fails to meet the letter of it. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol (season 13)[edit]

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

The season has not been confirmed yet, and no reliable sources can be found about the season. As a result, the page is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Zappa O Mati 02:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while a 13th season is very likely, now is not the time to make an article for it. Wait another year. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Always a slight possibility for cancellation. For right now, WP:TOOSOON, let's at least wait until audition sites are announced before the page is built in skeleton stub form. Nate • (chatter) 02:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Narutolovehinta5 unless sources confirming a 13th season can be found. Wikipedia is often people's first stop for info (I use it like that!), so we don't want to be saying it'll happen until we know it will. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 03:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless sources may be found to confirm that there will be a season 13, but at the moment, too much CRYSTAL. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 07:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking appropriate sources, we really can't have this article yet. As above stated, it's too soon. See WP:CRYSTAL. Best regards, Cindy(need help?) 08:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No source, it's WP:TOOSOON and failed criteria per WP:CRYSTAL. All attempts to keep it as redirect failed, no attempt at valid justifications by IP editors who keep reverting redirect. Hzh (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to When Heaven Burns. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This city is dying, you know?[edit]

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

This is an odd one, but ultimately, I'm not sure a random sentence from a foreign TV programme deserves an article all to itself. Perhaps as a paragraph in When Heaven Burns, but a lengthy article doesn't seem appropriate... Mabalu (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is kind of weird, and I more often vote for delete, but this does seem to be notable within Hong Kong. And since they speak English there it's not really "foreign" to English WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete - if we keep this, honestly, we should have a series of articles featuring Henry Tang's many quotes. (completely rubbish, the corest of our core values is to uphold our core values, 依家我係主場, etc.) Fails WP:GNG. Kayau (talk · contribs) 06:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge into When Heaven Burns. It's definitely a "saying" nowdays in hk, although even in the zh wikipedia the phrase is merged as part of the article. Dengero (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to When Heaven Burns per Dengero. We'll have the full story... at 11! 14:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into When Heaven Burns. I'm not at all moved by "foreign TV programme", as Wikipedia is not "foreign" to any country. Having said that, I don't think it quite stands up on its own. This would seem to make a perfect section inside the When Heaven Burns article.-- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - we can't have an entry for every catchphrase, it would be silly.Robert EA Harvey (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tre' Newton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Former high school standout that fell in obscurity in college. Once notable, but now no longer is. bender235 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator agrees the subject was "once notable" but notability cannot be lost per WP:NTEMP. No other reason is given for deletion since the last AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the creator of that article, and I made a mistake. Tre Newton did not lose notability, he never had it in the first place. Why keep the biography of a third-string college running back? Please test this article with WP:ATHLETE to see that he does not meet the criteria. --bender235 (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He might fail WP:ATHLETE but clearly passes WP:GNG with the huge coverage easily found simply by clicking the news link above. Here is [one of many] such articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, according to the article history the creator of the article was User:Jumpman Jordan and not User:Bender235.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needing an expansion isn't the same as needing notability. Passes WP:GNG handily. Deadbeef (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Athlete appears to meet WP:SIGCOV. While the article doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON (which is technically for professional football athletes not at the collegiate level) and possibly the coverage is run-of-the-mill for any NCAA Division I top pick, it's available sources in conducting WP:BEFORE are undeniable. Mkdw ^talk 09:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hino 600[edit]

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

Notability not established by WP:GNG. No sources. Gold Standard 04:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A distinct make and model of produced motor vehicle which, by long-standing consensus, establishes notability. Nominator's statement indicates WP:BEFORE was not followed; a lack of sources in the article is not a reason to delete, rather, sources need only exist to establish notability. A Google search shows sources available; a ((trout)) may be in order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't imagine someone deleting an article about a make of car. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 09:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand now that I am not knowledgeable enough of notability policy for car makes and will abstain from involvement in AfD until I become knowledgeable of them. I apologize for wasting valuable time. Regards, Gold Standard 18:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well useful encyclopedic knowledge. scope_creep (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 16:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boursorama[edit]

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

This was listed for PROD, "Unreferenced article about a non-notable business, an online stockbroker." There's much more extensive page at the frWP; given that, and the Euronext listing, I thought it better to have a community deccision. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. The article is about an online business and has no references. The link shown for Challenger, a French magazine, in Google News search (Boursorama joue la carte bancaire; "Boursorama plays the banking card") may be a RS, but the link is borked and does not take you to the article. The rest is the usual flood of business page coverage of routine reports and press releases. I read the fr: article; it is longer, but not referenced to third party sources either, only internal sites and business directories. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Company advert site posing as WP article, failing WP:ORG. scope_creep (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatant advert. LibStar (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Advert, nonencyclopaedic, violates WP:ORG guideline. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep in some form, discussion re. merging can continue on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative information seeking[edit]

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

The article is nominated per WP:SPIP. It is created primarily to promote its creator's work (WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:BOOKSPAM). The topic is more widely known as social search. Adblock2 (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with this assessment. Collaborative information seeking is NOT widely known as social search. If you do believe it, please cite your sources. ShahChirag (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and is pure WP:PROMO. Qworty (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG - What? Academic peer-reviewed research publications are not considered self-published, they're the most reliable of all reliable sources. The guidelines against spam should not be used to delete coverage of scientific research, they're fundamentally different things. These two articles contain a respectable collection of references from different authors with a high count of citations. If there's a conflict of interest, the community's responsibility is to review and assess the credibility of each individual claim, not to sweep everything under the carpet. The reasons why this content may be non-neutral have not even been addressed at the article's talk page; deletion should be a last resort if it was impossible to fix the problems, which seems unlikely. Diego (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straw man argument. Nobody here asserted that peer-reviewed publications are self-published. It is WP:COI that prevents those sources from being reliable sources, not the way they were published. Academic papers are generally reliable sources unless there is COI. Researchers have to disclose COI. If you look at the edit history, nearly all references in this article are first-party sources added by their authors. These are not independent third-party or secondary sources that WP:GNG calls for. If there is still confusion, see WP:Third-party_sources Adblock2 (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a severe misunderstanding of WP:RS and WP:COI somewhere in your argument. The fact that an academic paper is reliable has nothing to do with the behavior of its author on Wikipedia, it's only related to how the other independent researchers have received it. You should be reading policy, not essays (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP - a research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars."). An article that has been peer reviewed, published by a university and cited by others is not "first party". Please read WP:SELFCITE where it says that "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason". Remember that editing under a conflict of interest is not forbidden, it's only discouraged because researchers are likely to get neutrality policies wrong - something that other editors can fix (and should), not delete. If a neutral editor agrees with the edits made, those are perfectly fine. Once again, content discussion should be decided on content policy, not behavioral guidelines. The author's biography is WP:SELFPROMOTION and should be deleted, but the articles about science aren't the same thing at all; don't throw the baby away with the dirty bath water. Diego (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Seems similar to social search and social information seeking which are all notable topics. Warden (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's arguments are, at best, evidence for redirecting or merging; either we should keep this article or redirect it to social search. Moreover, authors are welcome to cite their own works if said works have been properly published in peer-reviewed contexts, and the only reason we would delete a page that's safe in this way is if it were so heavily self-promotional that it qualified for speedy deletion as promotional or for WP:TNT treatment; after looking over the article, I'm confident that it qualifies for neither of them. Merging is a discussion that can be held separately; I have no opinion on it. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that redirect is the best solution in this case. My thinking was that this discussion is necessary because redirect would delete the current promotional content. Merge would be a less desirable option. Merge runs a risk of making social search biased towards covering the work of a couple of researchers who are active at self-promotion at the expense of majority of other researchers who follow the guidelines and avoid making COI edits. This is a common problem I see in many articles. Adblock2 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to redirect it, why don't you withdraw the AFD? AFD is supposed to be used in circumstances when you want to see a link to the article turn red, not when you want it to send you to a different page. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A simple search of Google Books or Google Scholar will turn up reams of references. Too quick to nominate it. scope_creep (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Please consider this: 'search' and 'information seeking' are not the same. And 'social' and 'collaborative' are not the same. These words should not be used interchangeably, and so these topics should not be merged. ShahChirag (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is s clear consensus for keeping this. Whether it remains as a separate article or is merged elsewhere can be sicussed on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social information seeking[edit]

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

The article is nominated per WP:SPIP. It is created primarily to promote its creator work (WP:COI, WP:SPA). The topic is more widely known as social search Adblock2 (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page by the same author due to the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - bad nomination, WP:COI and behavior from editors are not reasons for deletion, since the article's creator doesn't own the article. No claim as to why the content could be non-neutral beyond redemption, so no reason to delete is given; behavioral guidelines don't uphold deletion of articles, content guidelines do. The Google Scholar link above returns an abundance of research papers from numerous independent researchers, so the WP:GNG is more than met. Diego (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you did in the nomination looks like a vandalism. I am reverting it. Even if you think the nomination is bad it doesn't justify your edit. Instead, it would be more helpful if you improve the article by adding some of the independent third party sources you found Adblock2 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. But accusing someone of vandalism doesn't look like WP:AGF - please don't do it. Diego (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the first part of your edit [48]: you modified social search in the nomination into s search making it a red link. This is unhelpful edit and does look like a typical vandalism to me. I will assume good faith if you say that was an accidental mistake on your part. Adblock2 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That should go without saying. If I had noted it, I would have corrected it myself. Diego (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Seems similar to social search and collaborative information seeking which are all notable topics. Warden (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We both agree that social search is a notable topic. The question here is if the new names introduced and defined by the creator of this article satisfy WP:GNG. I see no evidence of this. The terms are not generally accepted beyond a small research group. If you know some evidence of their notability or wider use, please share. Why is it beneficial to have three articles covering the same topic under slightly different names? Adblock2 (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per Warden, but seems to be sub field of Collaborative information seeking. scope_creep (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick GScholar search shows over 270 hits for the term and multiple papers where this topic is a central part of the paper. The topic is notable. While there may be issues with neutrality and due weight in the article, correcting these is a matter of editing, not deletion. The topics social search and collaborative information seeking and Social information seeking all seem to have some overlap, but organizing or merging these topics can be done outside of AfD. A notable topic and surmountable article problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's arguments are, at best, evidence for redirecting or merging; either we should keep this article or redirect it to social search. Moreover, authors are welcome to cite their own works if said works have been properly published in peer-reviewed contexts, and the only reason we would delete a page that's safe in this way is if it were so heavily self-promotional that it qualified for speedy deletion as promotional or for WP:TNT treatment; after looking over the article, I'm confident that it qualifies for neither of them. Merging is a discussion that can be held separately; I have no opinion on it. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice amount of secondary referencing including academic and scholarly sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. Please consider this: 'search' and 'information seeking' are not the same. And 'social' and 'collaborative' are not the same. These words should not be used interchangeably, and so these topics should not be merged. Having said that, the article on social information seeking could use more material, preferably by different authors, along with more scholarly references. ShahChirag (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, the sources are still not there.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Il Mio Miracolo (You Are My Miracle)[edit]

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

The song is not notable; no sources MazurJacek (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss of Fury[edit]

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

Non notable album, no sources / references. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Search fails to find any offline reviews (and very few online). Never charted. Fails WP:NALBUMS --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per Uncle Milty. I think of the notability guidelines as more to prevent advertising or promotion of upcoming stuff (that is, I don't see the harm in articles about older stuff), but I'm not experienced enough to qualify for the third part of the "understand policy, experiment with policy, create/ignore policy" essay I read recently. ~~(Can't seem to find it now.)~~ WP:SHUARI. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 08:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Party weekend tourism[edit]

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

This article is too generic a topic to be of any use to an encyclopedia... It does not cite any sources and is an orphaned article... The Wikimon (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added a source now. A Google search will show that this is indeed a relatively big industry, and I see no reason why this is less important than the other categories listed here: List of adjectival tourisms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfgabdk (talk • contribs) 10:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author claims that a Google search would show that this is a "relatively big industry". I did a Google search, and found zero significant coveraage in reliable sources discussing this topic. But maybe I missed something. So, please provide links to such reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Forum for Bengalee Hindus of Assam[edit]

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

Not noteworthy. Fails WP:ORG Mrwikidor ←track 19:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable, covered by [49] (the news items [50], [51] etc in Sentinel's site are not visible now, but Google search shows). BengaliHindu (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Only trivial/incidental coverage by the sources, verify the existence but not notability. Google search mostly shows links to blogs and self published sources. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as stands fails WP:ORG. Only reference lends it a passing mention. Deadbeef (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Only briefly mentioned in the lone source given. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trannylicious[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Band doesn't have an article and chart references don't work. Also, searching for "Trannylicious" and "JohnnyBoyXo" on Billboard produces no results. The album exists but at this point, this article seems to be somewhere between a hoax and intentional deception. OlYeller21^Talktome 04:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NALBUMS. Deadbeef (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per User:Deadbeef Davey2010 Talk 21:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per. scope_creep (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manasi Devi[edit]

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

This a BLP article which does not have a single credible source... The article should contain more information and sources... The Wikimon (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only source I could scare up on Google is this article about her daughter, in which she's mentioned once (if that is her, which does seem likely). You could also put a ((subst:prod blp)) on the page. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 08:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Completed a fairly extensive search of google.co.in and turned up the above author as publisher of two books. These can be checked here - [[52]]. She is definently an author but non-notable. scope_creep (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable.Jussychoulex (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush Records[edit]

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

No notable artists seem to be signed to Ambush, the two founders are very unlikely to be notable themselves with very minor stub-articles. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 16:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ORG. I also CSD'ed the first cofounder's article, and the second one is a redirect to an unrelated article. Deadbeef (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Record label with no notable artists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ideally this discussion needs more participation but I can't really relist it because of the fourth paragraph of WP:RELIST. The debate has been unsatisfactory and this close is therefore with no prejudice against speedy renomination. NAC—S Marshall T/C 10:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Ngưu Lang Chức Nữ[edit]

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

This seems like a case of misinformation if I'm not mistaken.. The term "Ngưu Lang Chức Nữ" is a Vietnamese translation of the Chinese "Niulang Zhinu", meaning "The Cowherd and Weaver Girl". This is actually a Chinese folklore story. However, this article depicts a Chinese tale as a Vietnamese festival. When I look at the interwiki links, they are all about the Chinese tale. See also: Qixi Festival. Cold Season (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to the relevant articles themeselves, the Qixi Festival is based on a nameless Chinese tale about two lovers. The article in question seems to be a deviation of it. Also, clicking on the Google, scholar, and books links provides a large trove of sources. This article needs expansion, but it is notable. Deadbeef (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The links provide solely Vietnamese-language hits, which just highlight the fact that this is misinformation. There is no hits for Nguu Lang Chuc Nu (with or without diacritics) for English sources, supporting the fact that the hits are due to a native name for something foreign, namely the Chinese tale (which is not nameless by the way). There is no references for the existence of the article topic, namely a native Vietnamese festival (the article's scope) or a Vietnamese tale. I should note that the misinformation is highlighted by the scope as indicated by the lead sentence (stating that it's a festival) or the festival-stub template, which is placed by the article creator (the sole content contributor); this contradicts the article title, which is about a tale. Simply said, there's little that indicates something other than misinformation. --Cold Season (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either move and rewrite so the Chinese origin is clear or redirect to Qixi Festival. _dk (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zenderman episodes[edit]

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

The list does not have any content; no episodes were ever added. Dianna (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this empty list, with no objection to recreation of an actual list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Cullen. Deadbeef (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Cullen. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 07:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is in the main article with no English translation, no airtime, no summaries, and no sourcing. It's not worth transferring over in that state. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hygiecracy[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable philosophy, neologism supported by a single blog site. Juliamars999 (talk · contribs) has also added this to numerous articles, so a broader cleaning may be necessary. JNW (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While there may not be much academic research citing this term, much of what happens in the world of thought is not represented by academia, or the mainstream press. Hygiecracy, however, is a political theory of substantial rigor and merit that has been discussed in avant garde circles for some time, and is relevant to questions and discussions of constitutional theory and constitutional interpretation. In addition to being supported by the blog, it is also supported by an article published on counterpunch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliamars999 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's not much academic research--I could find none whatsoever, and neither of the sources offered satisfy guidelines at WP:RELIABLE; but for a brief reference to Hygieia, the Counterpunch article doesn't seem to even mention it at all--then this doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY. Nobody is arguing the philosophy's merit, but there's no evidence that it merits an encyclopedia article. JNW (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - the Counterpunch article refers to the basic hygiecratic argument, related to the maxim salus populi... I accept the position that it does not satisfy certain guidelines. However, guidelines are just that - guidelines. They are not laws, or even rules. As such, it seems that one has flexibility, and discretion to some degree, with adhering more or less rigidly to guidelines. It seemed to me that this concept merited an encyclopedia entry. The last thing I wanted to do was to compromise the integrity of wikipedia. I am not convinced that this entry does that. But I will yield to consensus. Juliamars999
Delete Counterpunch all point to the same author with the same blog. Seems to violate WP:OR. Could be a new and important concept in the future, but certainly not at the moment. Wikipedia will never be at the edge of human thinking. scope_creep (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete as a Non-Notable Neologism. I'm a big believer in getting a sense of the notability of subjects from the size of their Google footprint, under the premise that from an eclectic iceberg of sufficient size odds are that a reliably-sourced snowcone can be made. At a mere 1430 hits for the term, I doubt there are enough reliable sources to make a piece of cocktail ice... Of course there is a "Hygiecracy" blog and a "Hygiecracy" facebook page, tipping off the likelihood of promotional intent behind a WP presentation of this purported subject. The term is not notable now (a GNG failure), and I doubt that it ever will be. Carrite (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am curious as to whether anyone else sees the irony in enforcing guidelines when - by the very definition of "guideline" in wikipedia's very own page - see Guideline - "guidelines are not binding and are not enforced." They are not laws, they are guidelines. This is not offensive material. Has Wikipedia become the Catholic Church? Juliamars999 (talk)Juliamars999 —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That a subject is inoffensive is a quality unrelated to its notability, and notability is a non-negotiable guideline. Parenthetically, when a new account edits at Wikipedia with the apparent intent of writing about or promoting a single subject, then responds to AfD feedback by questioning the website's integrity, the criticism is not likely to be taken to heart. Now I have to go and don my vestments. JNW (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Counter-comment I never questioned the website's integrity. I wrote that compromising - well, anyone who is interested can re-read what I wrote. It is not tremendously complicated and does not require interpretation. Just look up a few lines. Secondly, my account has been around for months; since when did ad hominems become acceptable as logic? Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the contradiction involving guidelines remains. A non-negotiable guideline is still a guideline. Juliamars999 (talk)Juliamars999 —Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, counter-counter comment If not questioning its integrity, perhaps I've misinterpreted the intent in asking if Wikipedia has become the Catholic Church. And the edit history [53] indicates that the first contribution was made April 12. As for perceived contradictions in guidelines, if one's interest is truly geared toward changing the process by which subjects are deemed noteworthy, then this is most probably not the best venue. Nor will it carry the day in an AfD. JNW (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment The quip regarding the church was intended to draw attention to dogmatism. I apologize if it caused offense. Drawing attention to dogmatism, however, is relevant when the issue is Guidelines (which according to Wikipedia's own entry on the matter "are not binding and not enforced"). I am sincerely interested in learning how this contradiction is reconcilable. Are Wikipedia's Guidelines not actually guidelines (even according to Wikipedia's own entry)? Are they called Guidelines, but are actually Rules? Please clarify. This actually seems to be a serious interpretive problem. Because, if they are guidelines then they are not supposed to be enforced and ought to be non-binding. I recognize that we do not see eye to eye on this, but I am honestly pursuing this in good faith Juliamars999 (talk)Juliamars999 —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: Juliamars999, you have correctly pointed out that Wikipedia is governed by "guidelines", including a notability "guideline" (codified at WP:Note), and that occasional exceptions to guidelines may apply. However, given that a guideline on Wikipedia is treated as a default rule, and any deviation from it is an "exception", the burden is on the proponent of the exception to prove that it is warranted. Thus far, I have seen you proffer no evidence supporting your view that Hygiecracy should be considered an exception to Wikipedia's notability guideline, other than by mentioning that the topic is not offensive. Do you have any other support for your view? Furthermore, the term "hygiecracy" facially appears to be a neologism, which are generally prohibited by WP:NEO. Do you have any evidence that the term is in fact not a neologism, or if it is a neologism, why an exception should be made in this instance? If not, note from WP:NEO that "Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's [in that Wiktionary] may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. You may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NEO; no coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Juliamars999, please read WP:ONLYGUIDELINE, and also note that several Wikipedia policies directly apply here. Sideways713 (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @JuliaMars. There actually are inclusion standards at WP, although judging by some of the dreck you will see it is difficult to grasp. Good luck with the blog and all, but the term itself would not seem to meet muster. I tell newcomers who are sucked into the Articles For Deletion maelstrom that AfD is sort of like traffic court: it doesn't matter if other people are speeding, once one is in the system it is a matter of defending one's innocence of the charges — and that means mustering multiple published reliable sources substantially covering the topic in question. Arguing that the laws are stupid and that one should be given a break just because doesn't work. Do try editing a few Wikipedia articles with an open mind, you might come to enjoy it. Sorry that you are probably on the wrong side of the dividing line here. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; neologism, non-notable, unreliable sources, no clear reason offered to support an exception to any Wikipedia guideline or policy. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Drummond[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

User:Frgewhqwth attempted to nominate this for deletion, citing its first AfD. I fixed the tag. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 00:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the first AfD resulted in a Delete, the actress has been active since then. I believe the article therefore has merit. Note that my opinion is colored by Frgewhqwth's actions, which I see as in bad faith (or at least reckless and rude). —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 00:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until reputable sources are found. nerd fighter 00:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It/she's notable. Davey2010 Talk 21:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – a) Procedural: no reason provided by nominator; lack of good will. b) As pointed out by Ignatzmice, five years after the previous AfD, she's accumulated some notable roles in notable shows as required by WP:NACTOR. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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