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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Briand[edit]

Denis Briand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. simply being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability. the only coverage I found confirms he was an ambassador but nothing indepth about him. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No in-depth coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in depth independent coverage as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgia Wikipedia[edit]

Nostalgia Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This Google search doesn't yield anything that would seem to pass WP:42—some Encyclopedia Dramatica trolling, a few minor blog posts, and then basically a bunch of WMF stuff and mirrors. Nostalgia WP's cool and all, but I don't think it's notable enough for an article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia Meta-Wiki (2nd nomination): Our behind-the-scenes sites get a lot less press coverage than you'd think, most of the time. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that I've invited User:Graham87 to comment here, as he's the resident expert. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Since Ansh brought it up, precedents in both directions can be found here. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I wasn't aware that this article existed before I received the notification about it on my talk page (thanks PinkAmpersand). I have never really been a fan of these "XXX Wikipedia" articles, because they're often so insular and there aren't usually any reliable third-party sources for them. This "Nostalgia Wikipedia" page is not an exception. Graham87 00:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and precedent (I'm referring to specific language Wikipedias that had their articles deleted through AfD, but I'm too lazy to go find them right now) as failing WP:GNG. Ansh666 02:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, the ones I were referring to: [1][2][3][4] All IIRC were in similar condition (no external links except to the wiki itself), and while those merited redirection, List of Wikipedias is for language Wikipedias, not for this sort of thing. Ansh666 06:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Graham. But could we copy (with attribution) the paragraph over to meta:Nostalgia wiki first? (Asking partially as I don't recall if there are restrictions or preferred methods for interwiki copying, and partially to get everyone here to watchlist that existing meta page ;) –Quiddity (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you can go find an admin on meta to import it (m:RFH), or you can just do it the low-tech way, by copy-pasting and leaving attribution in your edit summary or on the talk page. (If you do the latter, though, you should list all the contributors, since if the article here is deleted, a hyperlink will no longer qualify as sufficient attribution.) — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 14:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Content copied to meta:Nostalgia wiki, with edit summary attribution. –Quiddity (talk) 17:58, 16 August 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. While not unanimous, the consensus here is that this article cannot be supported by the available sources without the use of original research. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney ethnic enclaves[edit]

Sydney ethnic enclaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

the term "enclaves" is a very POV term with negative connotations, I do note it is used commonly in the USA but not as much elsewhere. but also it is unclear what qualifies a suburb as listed in the article as an "ethnic enclave", is it 30% of the population that is born in a particular country? it is very POV how suburbs are included in this list without clear criteria. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've never heard the word enclave used negatively, and this article doesn't use it negatively. You can simply find another word to use instead if that's a problem. I added a link to the official census page of Sydney which shows the various ethnic groups do exist and in what numbers. [5] They all have their own Wikipedia articles also. There is also Chinatown, Sydney which talks about the Chinese enclave in Sydney. The "Birthplace of parents" section on the census site shows most of the people living in Sydney had parents born in other nations. Under "Language (other than English)" Arabic, Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Greek appeared in sufficient number. A significant number of people are born in other nations according to the "Country of birth" section, and as I have said, most of those born in the country still had parents who were born elsewhere. Dream Focus 00:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 00:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, it is used negatively, a Government Minister used it in a negative context here [6]. Also what is the criterion to be classed as "enclave" what is " A significant number of people are born in other nations"? LibStar (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how its used negatively in that article. The dictionary the word clearly [7] as distinct territorial, cultural, or social unit enclosed within or as if within foreign territory <ethnic enclaves>. Dream Focus 00:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam Webster is a US dictionary and not really used in Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then find a popular dictionary in Australia. I'm sure the word means the same there too. Just look at how its used in news articles in that nation. And do you have any proof that anyone considers it negative in any possible way, or is that just your original research/wild imagination? Dream Focus 01:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's premier dictionary Macquarie Dictionary defines enclave as "a country, or especially, an outlying portion of a country, entirely or mostly surrounded by the territory of another country". sounds like Kosovo or Tibet to me. LibStar (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just registered a free trial to see that. " 2. a small district or area enclosed within a larger one, as a suburb within a city, especially one characterised by a racial or political identity." You only quoted the first definition and ignored the second which defines exactly what we're talking about. Dream Focus 09:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

regardless you have failed to provide a definitive criterion for list inclusion. what is it? 20% born in that country, 40% that speak that speak that language? LibStar (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the name clear enough. Ethnic enclaves in the city of Sydney Australia. Dream Focus 01:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how does a suburb get onto the list? what criteria is being used? LibStar (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify this is a list article, just in case it wasn't obvious enough already, we should rename it to List of Sydney ethnic enclaves. Dream Focus 00:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sole reference is very general, the necessary data is located in deep individual reports. There are also elements of WP:OR in the article. (What is the criteria for inclusion? What does "sizeable" mean?) Also a number of WP:POVish comments (eg "gentrification and rising house prices are forcing many Italians out of the area"). Who says? Generally a poorly written article that cannot likely be saved. WWGB (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment article says "There is a sizeable Maltese Australian population in Greystanes". yet only 3.6% of those in Greystanes are born in Malta. so is 3.6% the threshold to be an ethnic enclave? complete POV to me. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2.6% of people born in Ingleburn, New South Wales come from Bangladesh and somehow it gets labelled an enclave where more residents in the suburb are born in India or the Phillipines. this is complete POV to label it a Bangladeshi ethnic enclave with no agreed defensible criteria. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just state what percentage there is, and what the exact number is, according to the most recent census data. Far more encyclopedic than using vague words like "sizeable". Dream Focus 01:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you still haven't stated the critera to be listed on this list. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kogarah is a listed as an ethnic enclave for Macedonians yet the article says top "countries of birth being China 12.0%, Nepal 6.5% and Bangladesh 4.4%." again complete POV. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to bother to look up information, why not use it to correct any mistakes you find in the article and reference it, as I have been doing? Dream Focus 02:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you still haven't stated the critera to be listed on this list. no point correcting when there is no clear criteria for list inclusion. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment references can establish a certain % ethnic population in a particular suburb, but there are hardly any references describing suburbs as "enclaves". it is therefore complete POV to use such a label. nor could this article be renamed "list of suburbs with significant ethnic populations" because significant is undefined too. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article seems to have been created around stereotypes of Sydney's population, and a misunderstanding what the term "enclave" actually means, and has no useful encyclopedic value. While some parts of Sydney have higher-than-average proportions of groups from particular backgrounds (as would be expected for any large city with a large migrant population), the proportion generally isn't terribly high. Importantly, people from these groups routinely move in and out of other parts of the city and interact with people from other backgrounds. As such, it isn't accurate to describe the certain suburbs as being "enclaves" of one group or another. This can be easily tested through the Australian Burueau of Statistics census data - for example, people from China make up only 30% of the supposed Chinese "enclave" of Eastwood [8], the "large community" of Sudanese people in Blacktown is actually so small that the ABS doesn't report it in the Census summary for the suburb [9] only 11% of people in the claimed South African "enclave" of St Ives are from South Africa: [10] and only 15% of people in the Jewish "enclave" of Bondi report Judaism as their religion [11] (where they're heavily outnumbered by people with no religion). This seems to actually be a 'List of ethnic and religious stereotypes associated with Sydney suburbs', and should be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Many articles exist about this subject. Category:Ethnic enclaves Many have the term ethnic enclave in their name. Australian newspapers talk about the "ethnic enclaves" regularly. [12] So the name isn't offensive. It is clearly defined as mentioned previously. Dream Focus 10:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have been adding references to Australian news sources that mention the ethnic enclaves, calling them that, and listing which neighborhoods have what percentage of which group in them. Articles like this [13] help prove reliable sources do cover this information. Dream Focus 10:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which will get us to something like "List of Sydney suburbs Bernard Salt has described as being ethnic enclaves", which doesn't strike me as being very useful I'm afraid (the Census was in 2011, not 2012 BTW). There isn't much support for such a concept in the academic literature, where a quick Google scholar search returns not all that many useful results, with many of these appearing to argue that Sydney doesn't have ethnic enclaves: [14] A few academic articles do seem to apply the "enclave" terminology, but many seem to argue that it's invalid. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Did anyone actually read the very first paragraph of that article:

What proportion of the population by country of birth dominates which suburbs? Where are the most intense immigrant concentrations? And are these concentrations sufficiently distinctive to qualify as ethnic enclaves?

The author questions the legitimacy of the term "enclave" to describe groups that our article then unequivocally describes as "ethnic enclaves". He's asked the question (about his own research) and we've answered it for him with an unwavering yes! How is that not original research? Stalwart111 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And source 1:

Those who oppose immigration and multiculturalism deride these suburbs as ethnic enclaves and ‘no go’ areas.

[Underlining mine]. Yes, a term of derision. And...

The most interesting product developed from these suburbs is the move from ethnic enclaves [negative] to cultural precincts [positive].

[Brackets mine]. Says it all really. Stalwart111 13:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - in Australia, "enclave" is the word you use when you want to describe a small group of migrants living in one particular area who sell products popular with their own culture, put up signs in their own language and generally "refuse" (so it is claimed) to integrate with people not from their own culture in the suburbs around them. I'd almost suggest in some cases the word has been used as synonymous with "ghetto". Such descriptions almost always have racial undertones and in Australia are often accompanied by racist epithets like "Vietnamatta" (a racist portmanteau of Vietnamese - the people - and Cabramatta - the suburb). Enclave is probably used by older white Australians (like Bernard Salt) in its original context, though they did so in the context of the White Australia policy. See, particularly, it's use here in the Sydney Morning Herald to describe Hong Kong and here to describe rich South African immigrants on Sydney's North Shore, here to describe an Aboriginal community with it's own language and here to poke fun at inner city hipsters. Down here, it's not a nice word. We shouldn't be using it in the context of an article title, regardless of how many old white men use the term in reliable sources.

Beyond that, the definitions are hopelessly POV, many of the claims are completely unsourced, many "obvious" communities have been left off the list and much of the "information" is clearly based on someone's recollection of the "good old days" when certain groups congregated in certain areas (but they have long since moved elsewhere making parts of the list about 50 years out of date). Stalwart111 12:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and extracting raw data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and their Census (currently 3 of the 6 sources) and then extrapolating/interpreting our own conclusions about what that raw data means in terms of ethnic diversity is pure, unadulterated original research. Stalwart111 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

excellent reasoning Stalwart, you've hit the nail on the head on why this is POV and OR. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up a related discussion on the category here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 15. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Stalwart111's comments: in the Australian context, claims that certain groups live in an 'enclave' are generally used to attack that group though an assertion that they're not mixing with the general population and are "taking over" various regions (and generally, by extension, that letting them into the country was a mistake). This isn't actually true for any ethnic group in Australia. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article title is "... enclaves", the main section is "List of enclaves" - and we all appear to agree that an enclave is an area - but what follows is a list of ethnicities, not a list of areas (eg suburbs). If the article is to be kept, we need to change the main section name to "Ethnic groups" or similar, because that's what they are listed by. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 17:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Stalwart111. POV, OR, unreliably sourced, divisive and unencyclopedic. Why we persist in allowing opinion pieces like this masquerading as articles to exist is beyond me. It does us no credit. Begoon ^talk 06:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ridicolous debates on the word "enclave" being offensive (if it really is, which we have no evidence of, it's just a matter of renaming the page -therefore it doesn't require deletion), the topic of ethnically-enriched neighbourhoods in the city is notable, per sources found by User:Dream Focus etc. No OR is needed if we stick to the sources -remember that OR and POV are about content, not about topic, and as such can be solved by editing: therefore our deletion policy requires us to keep, if that's all the concerns we have.-- cyclopia^speak! 15:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• regardless of the "offensiveness" of the term, what is the criteria for getting suburbs on the list? what minimum % makes it a enclave? there is no clear criteria, simply saying "reliable sources" is not good enough, the sources like the Bernard Salt article is simply an opinion piece. it is not like a list of heritage listed buildings where it is clear cut it is in or not. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• RS are good enough. We're not here to make original research. -- cyclopia^speak! 09:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we've well and truly established that, in Australia, the term is offensive. Even the sources highlighted by those seeking to keep the article refer to it as a term of "derision". If you have an alternate term that accurately explains these areas (which we don't really have in Australia) then by all means, feel free to suggest an alternate title. If you think we can accurately refine the term "ethnically-enriched neighbourhood" in an Australian context, with reliable sources, go for it. The reality is that the premise of the article is original research - "ethnic enclaves" have x features - these locations in Sydney have x features - therefore these locations in Sydney are "ethnic enclaves" without reliable sources saying as much. Stalwart111 00:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the premise is OR. If the body of the article is OR, this can be solved by editing. -- cyclopia^speak! 09:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources speak clearly and neutrally about the existence of Sydney ethnic enclaves. Examples:

• In "Sociology in Today's World" there is a full chapter devoted to the concept of "ethnic enclave" in Australia/NZ, where you can find a definition of the term, which has no offensive/slur overtones at all: "An ethnic enclave is a spatial concentration of ethnic group members who establish businesses that serve and employ mainly members of the ethnic group and reinvest profits in community businesses and organization" and then discusses the Vietnamese enclave in Sydney and others in Australia.

• Here we have another academic book giving definitions and discussions (still in the context of Sydney/Australia): "The ethnic enclave is understood as an ethnic concentration with a high degree of institutional completeness, or self-sufficiency" (K.Valtonen, "Social Work and Migration:Immigrant and Refugee Settlement and Integration").

More books:

• Here the Sephardic community in Sydney is discussed in terms of an ethnic enclave
• "Dunn notes that 40% of Sydney's Vietnamese population lives in Fairfield (...) the area being viewed problematically as an ethnic enclave" (Keith Jacobs," Experience and Representation:Contemporary Perspectives on Migration in Australia")
• "Newly arrived migrants (...) adjust in life in the partially familiar environment of an ethnic enclave (M.Price, L. Benton-Short : "Migrants to the Metropolis:The Rise of Immigrant Gateway Cities")

And news sources follow: "Unlike the mixed population of Greenacre, Annandale is an ethnic enclave where residents are surrounded by those of their kind." (Sydney Morning Herald) ; "Arncliffe, 10km south of the city centre, a place settled mainly by Lebanese Muslims since the 1970s that was once feared to be an ethnic enclave of crime and unemployment." (The Australian). Do I need to add more sources? There are. Before replying, please take care of giving them a look. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More sources that establish the term:

• Chinese-Australian speaks about her life: "My parents had no desire to move out of the security of their ethnic enclave" (Lucille Lok-Sun Ngan, Chan Kwok-bun , "The Chinese Face in Australia:Multi-generational Ethnicity among Australian-born Chinese")
• "Some people living in an ethnic enclave may be discouraged from learning English and acquiring knowledge about Australian bureaucracies" (Curtis C. Roseman, Hans-Dieter Laux, Günter Thieme, "EthniCity:Geographic Perspectives on Ethnic Change in Modern Cities")
• And oh yes, there is one source that deems the term "problematic", but nevertheless employs it, saying that a neighbourhood of Sydney is not simply an ethnic enclave: [15]. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete / redirect as these are no enclaves, they're demographic groups. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:OR, and piss-poor 'research' at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

• Let's look at some of these sources from Cyclopia, almost all do not establish individual suburbs of Sydney as ethnic enclaves but generally refer to the concept of enclaves generally in Australia. An argument for keep here is that sources exist, but none of these sources "prove" individual suburbs as enclaves. this provides no base for including individual suburbs in this article under AfD. the whole point of Sydney ethnic enclaves article is to list individual suburbs.

• this one mentions ethnic enclaves but the word Sydney is several paragraphs later, so it does not directly refer to the existence of ethnic enclaves in particular suburbs.
• similarly this one and this and this do not refer to suburbs that may be enclaves.
• this one does not argue Annandale is an ethnic enclave is actually says Not only do suburbs such as Annandale and Newtown have fewer migrants than the average Sydney suburb.
• this one is someone's opinion in a book and again does not refer to specific suburbs in Sydney
• this one specifically refers to Arncliffe, but it seems to refer to enclave as a term used in the past not present. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so my assessment here, is that one can find literature with the words enclaves and Sydney on the same page, but very little sources that attribute individual suburbs as "ethnic enclaves". LibStar (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to have a list of individual enclaves. We should not reason about the actual shape of the article, but about the topic. Everything else can be dealt with editing. The topic of Sydney ethnic enclaves is notable (even if perhaps would be better merged in Australian ethnic enclaves or something like that). The concept is sound and far from being "offensive" as someone argued above. That's all we need for keeping. Everything else is cleanup. -- cyclopia^speak! 08:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you're basically suggesting a major rewrite of the current article to fit your sources and a more generic topic of Sources that perhaps list Sydney and ethnic enclaves on the same page without reference to specific suburbs. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A major rewrite would be a good idea. Given that AfD is not cleanup and that what can be solved by editing has to be solved by editing, per our deletion policy, that an article requires to be mostly rewritten is not a reason to delete it. Sources above show clearly that the concept meets WP:GNG and is covered in a lot of reliable, academic literature. AfD is about the suitability of the topic, not about the suitability of the current state of the article. --cyclopia^speak! 08:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how converting the article from a list to something entirely different and massively broadening the topic to Australian ethnic enclaves are suggestions in favor of keeping this. Maybe everybody here would be in favor of keeping what you're proposing, but we can't really be sure because what you're proposing bears only a casual relationship with the article and topic under discussion here. WP:BLOWITUP, etc. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The earlier debate seems to ignore the fact that with some populations (Maltese Australians, Macedonian Australians, etc.), there will be lots of people who so identify but who were born in Australia. So just looking at the percentage born in a certain place will not tell you what percentage identifies as part of a given ethnic group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename To something like Location of ethnic groups in Sydney. The article is focused on where particular ethnic groups live, so it is about the placement of those groups, not the overall character of the locations. If a group is small enough 100% of its members could live in one location, and yet be only a small percentage of the population there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If a group is small enough 100% of its members could live in one location" . that is definitely not true in Sydney, census data reveals that there is no one suburb where 100% of migrants of that ethnicity live in Sydney. if that were the case, yes "enclaves" would exist. but evidence is sorely lacking of existence of enclaves in individual suburbs. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per LibStar's analysis of sourcing. Much less concerned about debate over whether or not the term is offensive, but there doesn't seem to be reliable sourcing to back up the article and topic currently under discussion. Suggested alternative topics such as Australian ethnic enclaves don't seem to me to have a meaningful editorial relationship with this topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are about 45 different things wrong with this article. The title is neither common usage nor inoffensive. The sourcing is weak. Some of the enclaves themselves are not notable, and the rest can just have their own articles without this list existing pbp 00:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Ethnic composition is a valid subject; there is nothing inherently POV here. Yes, it can be sourced better, just as any other wikipedia page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please define the unambiguous criteria for listing a suburb in this article, no keep !voter has done this yet. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too am interested in knowing the threshold percentage of the population that entitles an ethnicity to be considered an "enclave". At the very least, it would have to be the dominant ethnicity in that region. For example, in Haymarket, New South Wales, Chinese is the dominant ethnicity. Where else, if anywhere, is this true? WWGB (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please define the unambiguous criteria for listing a suburb in this article, no keep !voter has done this yet. - Don't be disingenuous, I clearly stated it above. The one and only criteria is reliable sources defining it as an ethnic enclave. We need no more, no less. And nothing prohibits us to make it an article about the enclaves in general, instead than a list-like article. --cyclopia^speak! 08:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something with clear meaning like "Ethnic concentrations in Sydney" and turn it into prose. "Enclave" is far too vague a term to be able to create a categorical list of them, at least in a situation like this where there are no walls or political boundaries. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and what is the criteria to list suburbs by ethnic concentrations? 5%? 15% ? LibStar (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article, of coure, does not (and does not attempt to) list suburbs by ethnic concentrations. Rather it provides factually verifiable information of the form: [As of year X], people of ethnicity Y in Sydney tended to concentrate in [parts] of area/suburb Z. Sociologists may standardly refer to such concentrations as "ethnic enclaves". - 122.56.121.138 (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the reasoning of Stalwart111 and AndyTheGrump. Poorly researched article that is basically WP:OR and offensive by its choice of terminology. Demographics of Sydney#Ethnic groups already has some better-sourced info and plenty of room to add more, making this AfD'd page a mostly unsourced WP:POVFORK. Also note two academic WP:RS disputing that the term "enclave" is appropriate for Sydney's situation [16][17]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a former taxi driver in a metropolitan area, I am familiar with the sort of urban micro-geography involved here. As sourcing may be difficult, a well-referenced article may be difficult, and worse than that, subject to rapid change in the situation on the ground, which combined with lack of good references may present problems. However, despite this article being close to the natural limits of Wikipedia, it is of value to our readers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As a former taxi driver in a metropolitan area" is WP:IKNOWIT and original research. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The concentration of ethnic groups in particular neighbourhoods is common and well-documented. The word enclave seems fine and we have category:ethnic enclaves which demonstrates its use elsewhere. If we wanted to change it, this would be done by a move, not deletion. Warden (talk) 12:03, 23 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 420[edit]

Gliese 420 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per StringTheory11. BSVulturis (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in depth independent coverage as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:12, 19 August 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. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 269[edit]

Gliese 269 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's included in List of nearest bright stars which is "a table of stars found within 15 parsecs (48.9 light-years) of the Sun that have an absolute magnitude of +8.5 or brighter". Would a redirect there be appropriate? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a combined article, possibly on near solar class K stars. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NASTRO. Not bright enough nor near enough to be independently notable in the absence of publications specifically about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 21 August 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) 21:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten (Green Day song)[edit]

The Forgotten (Green Day song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD (nominated by a different editor) for the fallacious reason of all songs deserve articles. Original concern was "Lack of notability, the song has never been released as a single or promotional single. Not all songs with music videos require an article, and in this songs case that is the only notable thing about it." — Richard BB 22:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This song peaked at #11 on the Japan Hot 100, which satisfies the notability guideline for songs. TCN7JM 10:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TCN7JM - verifiable in reliable sources that the song hit a national music chart, so meets criteria 1 of WP:NSONG Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The song was never released as a single or promotional singe, and the source's that say it has charted, say it has charted through digital downloads from ¡Tré!, not as its own single. There are other Green Day songs that were released in similar circumstances (such as Macy's Day Parade) which had articles that was deleted for the same reasons. --Ral539(talk) 01:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONG mentions nothing about being a single or an album, merely that it has to appear in a music or sales chart of significance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter considering it isn't a notable song anyway. It really isn't deserving of its own article when other songs in Green Day's catalogue that are significant had articles that were closed for "lack of notability". This song really lacks anything significant that makes it deserving of its own article, and it listed in the discography page that this song charted. In fact everything mentioned in this article has already been mentioned in other articles. --Ral539(talk) 10:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline quite specifically states that songs that have charted on a major chart are notable enough for their own articles, which this one did. Your argument against notability seems to be that everything in this article was already said somewhere else, which isn't true either. Some stuff, notably the content in the Reception section, seems to be unique to this article. TCN7JM 10:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not only has the song charted, but also has significant coverage through this source [18], which is actually cited in the article. In fact, according to that source, it was released as a single from that Twilight album. I never seen anyone arguing that it's not a single at all, other than here on Wikipedia. But even if wasn't released as a single, that doesn't justify the article being deleted, as long as it passes the notability guidelines. Kokoro20 (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Due to high charting in multiple countries, satisfies WP:NSONGS. STATic message me! 17:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The song is definitely notable. Koala15 (talk) 18:35, 15 August 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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Razanne[edit]

Razanne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article reads as advertisement, has had a "no references" tag since 2009. Notability is not established. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, because it is an article I originated and I do not like to have articles I started deleted. But, as a matter of fact, I myself had forgotten all about the toy until brought back to my attention by this. As far as it sounding like advertisement, I never stooped that low. In fact I've placed the advertisement tag on som e articles myself. Antonio A tempo slow Martin 23:25, 12 August, 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. This toy has received lots of substantial coverage. Most are paywalled, but the news button in this nomination gave me several. Here's one, another, another, another, another, and another. There's more news sources then this, with some in different languages. Also note the book sources, too. Seems to me like a WP:BEFORE failure. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete - Reads like advertisement, lacks any references, and links online all appear to be promotional in nature. Caffeyw (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The current state of the article has no bearing on the notability of the subject. The sources presented by Taylor Trescott show that significant coverage does exist to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per Taylor Trescott. Easily meets WP:GNG. CooperDB (talk) 15:22, 19 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A New Era Begins (ECW)[edit]

A New Era Begins (ECW) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this event even happened. A Google search comes up with this article and several fan made ECW events, but not one actually promoted by ECW itself Girfuy Ya Bawbag (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've found a few bits about the show, so I do think it did exist. But it doesn't seem to be anything more than a weekly episode of Hardcore TV. Either way I don't think this is going to pass GNG as the only somewhat reliable sources that mention it do so in a trivial passing manner.LM2000 (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just to slightly correct LM2000, I think in fact it may have been a major house show that was taped and shown in pieces on Hardcore TV. Aside from that, yes it's not notable even though it would appear it did happen. It's certainly not up there with the ECW PPV's. BerleT (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:29, 19 August 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. LFaraone 01:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sare Jahan Se Achcha (pencil sketch)[edit]

Sare Jahan Se Achcha (pencil sketch) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and works as a coat rack. The high number of relevant people pictured, dies not necessarily make the sketch notable The Banner talk 20:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect to proper page. But seeing the amount of information the article has, Keep is more desirable in my opinion. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability can't be inherited from the people mentioned in the drawing. And remember: it is only appreciated when the sources about the drawing are in English, it is not mandatory. Sources in other languages and scripts are also okay. The Banner talk 14:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have improved the article for some typos and grammar. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is been created by me and apart from that as also feel that it is notable. I have added quite a good information with sources. Thanks -- Coolgama (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sources a bit difficult due to language barrier but there seems to be attention paid. BTW other pencil sketches make the claim to being the world's largest so that probably should be deleted or given qualifier and source, or removed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Dear Green Cardamom, Thanks for bringing the issue to notice. I have removed the claim unless proper referee, which is awaited.

• Merge and redirect to Pramod Kamble as the artist as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Art in India suffers from a greater lack of coverage than the West due to far greater preoccupation with livelihood, lower levels of income, lower levels of literacy, and education in India. Typically, any significant Indian work of art also draws much less media refs/google links than one created in the West. Hence the same yardstick may not be suitable else art in India will not be able to make it to Wikipedia because of this biased yardstick. AshLin (talk) 12:39, 19 August 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 Withdraw. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OHMS (1980 film)[edit]

OHMS (1980 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I found no significant coverage for this film. While Leslie Nielsen is notable, this film was not a significant part of his career. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a CBS film. Passes WP:GNG.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not make it pass WP:GNG, but I am willing to withdraw it per a book that you added. A television film being part of the reason for the author writing a book with a reliable publisher is enough notability for an old television film. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ditto Blofeld's comment. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:34, 12 August 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 per WP:SNOW as there is no support for the nom. Warden (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic fabric[edit]

Synthetic fabric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article in unsourced and makes several false claims. Poorly written. Made redundant by articles on polyester, synthetic fiber, etc. Eliminate1337 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Topic is massively notable; AFD is not cleanup. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I would like to point out that the user account nominating this article for deletion appears to have been created solely for that purpose. This encourages me to be slightly wary. I would also point out that the nomination makes no explicit reference to any WP:POLICIES. The nominator should rectify this. Benboy00 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this article should certainly be kept, as it is, at least in theory, distinct from synthetic fibres. It does, of course, need a lot of work, as it has absolutely no sources. It also does not have much activity. I think this article has potential, but I myself am not going to work on it. If noone else expresses interest in working on it either, then I shall change my vote to a delete Benboy00 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. No doubt it's notable, though it needs a ton of work. At the least, WP:TNT redirect it to Synthetic fiber. Ansh666 02:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Indisputably notable, encyclopaedic topic. Yes, it needs clean-up, but this does seem like an exceptionally bad-faith nomination. At the very least, the redirect Ansh suggests above is a sufficient place-holder until such time as someone wishes to expand it into the improved article it should be. Mabalu (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep SK1 - Bad-faith nomination that does not articulate any policy-based reason for deletion. AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A truly dreadful article, but there are worse in Wikipedia, and the notability of the topic is beyond dispute. I note that this article is flagged as within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts which is itself tagged as inactive - there are other very unsatisfactory articles in scope and this is an area that desperately needs work. But deleting will solve nothing. Dare I say (as a man) that this is an example of the unintended gender bias in WP which still has to be resolved. It needs people who understand textiles at all levels. --AJHingston (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biased indeed, you are. Both my grandfather and father worked in textiles at some point in their lives, while all my grandmother and mother know how to do is knit and sew. That said, that was over 30 years ago (so no synthetics) and in a country where en-wiki isn't too well represented. Ansh666 17:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not for a moment suggesting that this was not a matter on which men could not contribute usefully, especially when it comes to the technology and manufacture. I had better not go further than that for fear of offending somebody else. My point was rather that textiles and clothing are traditionally something that women have been more interested in than men, and contrasting the inadequate coverage of these with more traditionally male topics - cars, ships, aircraft, men's sports etc. For what it is worth the reason that I have been aware of the problem is that I have had occasion to look up clothing and textiles in WP precisely because I do not know much about them, and been generally very disappointed, so I do not want to suggest either that only women will be interested. It really does not matter who writes the articles so long as they know what they are talking about and can do it well. As for dynamiting articles such as this, it would be fine if they were to be replaced by something better, but the evidence is that they would not.

I knew I would get into trouble for bringing sex into it. --AJHingston (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ick. Sorry you thought I was offended...internet can't convey tone. I was just trying to point out that it's not just the gender bias, it's the other biases, like internet accessibility and time-type things. Ansh666 22:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I thought I might possibly have upset you, but I was expecting someone to challenge my comment. This is a sensitive area. Whatever the reasons, and I suspect that they are less to do with practicalities than personalities and personal inclinations, those who might have been expected to produce good articles on these topics have simply failed to do so. It may be that blogs and Tumblr are a more attractive outlet than the grind of putting together a WP article. But I would like to see that change. --AJHingston (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have done a VERY quick tidy-up and edit on the article, but while I am a textile/fashion cove, I honestly don't know too much about the chemical processes and stuff. No time at the moment to work on it in more depth. Not sure that making a bad article appear slightly less badly written isn't doing more harm than good... Mabalu (talk) 02:16, 14 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IFunny[edit]

IFunny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Procedural nomination. Singularity42 (talk · contribs) PRODed it with the comment "Non-notable app". I have removed the PROD and nominated here instead because I thought that there may be objections. It's actually a pretty popular application, but that is irrelevant here. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of notability. Singularity42 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Widely ignored by reliable sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – not detailed by reliable sources, therefore no notability either. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:37, 19 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Ching[edit]

Joshua Ching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent sources, no reliable sources, no notable bands for which he's played, salary of $7.50/hr per infobox (just kidding about the last one but is worth a chuckle) Boogerpatrol (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; nothing found to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO.  Gong show 20:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cannot find any evidence that this guy meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 10:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Skeptical of having articles on individual musicians when their band doesn't have an article. If and when All Heart gets an article we can cover Mr Ching there. Note that $7.50 and hour is below federal minimum wage, so perhaps the authorities should be notified. Herostratus (talk) 01:46, 19 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Björn Djupström[edit]

Björn Djupström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:BLP this article is not notable. There are hundreds and thousands of songwriters who have written or produced notable songs but where little is known about them as individuals they are often exempt from BLP articles as there often isnt enough information to warrnat the article or there isnt enough coverage from reliable sources. Both of which are a problem in this instance. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 29 July 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:41, 5 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:20, 12 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photon dynamics in the double-slit experiment[edit]

Photon dynamics in the double-slit experiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This long personal essay is essentially unsourced, citing only general textbooks. It has had no discussion, little participation, and is unlikely to be supportable by any sources. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep neutral. AfD on an interesting topic has the makings of a good article (but not a GA). It rambles and does not go very far. Physics is mainstream (as far as it goes), no crankery here. Needs improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Most of the article is regurgitations of general physics topics only very tenuously connected to the double-slit experiment specifically, trying desperately to impart some heft by association with noteworthy subjects - what I would call WP:TOSSINTHEKITCHENSINK (WP:KITCHENSINK is taken). For example, the energy and momentum of a photon each get a subsection, but what does that have to do with the experiment? It's like starting an article about tires with a long description of what a circle is, followed by a soliloquy about the road system of the United States. There's nothing here that double-slit experiment lacks. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not commenting on the AfD, but much of the content is a duplicate of Photon polarization. Someone may wish to check what's the story with attribution, and probably delete the text here for being an unnecessary duplicate. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Complexica created both at the same size and same time. Photon polarization in Aug. 2006 and this one in Sept. 2006. Lots of text re-use for sure. Not much would be lost if we delete. Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 29 July 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as per above. If there's anything here that might be suitable in another article, the author (who has not commented here, I note) should feel free to ask for a copy of the text - or ping me, and I'll send it over for them. Is the title a useful redirect? I'm guessing not, but would not oppose if there's consensus for it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary fork of photon polarization and double-slit experiment. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and above comments. This appears to be a collection of vignettes that are sectioned-off from various related physics articles and combined into a single article without coherent presentation. There is very little text and not much that ties these sections together under one topic. Hence, it is at least an unneeded content fork. It also poorly sourced. I also agree that this is an unnecessary fork of photon polarization and double-slit experiment. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:06, 16 August 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's Choice (Hong Kong)[edit]

Mother's Choice (Hong Kong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Obviously promotional article that might need WP:TNT if it were notable, but with only passing coverage in reliable sources, isn't. (The vast majority of the hits are about a giant truffle fungus, proceeds from the auction of which went to this group; there are also a number of paid press releases, other trivial mentions, and apparently one proper source.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the prod and recommended that Roscelese take it to AfD. There's a temptation to see such a lengthy and detailed article as an obvious keeper, but as noted in the nom, once you actually look at the sources, there isn't much in the way of independent RS. There could be a cultural bias issue here though: I lack the competence in Chinese languages to assess all the possible sources. Leaning towards a weak keep, but let's see what happens. Tigerboy1966  15:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't read Chinese, but from what I can tell from Google Translate, the sourcing or lack thereof in both of HK's official languages is comparable - tons of trivial (and truffle) mentions, some of what appears to be paid publicity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - What's the fuss about? There are plenty of secondary sources (in English and Chinese): A list of published sources. STSC (talk) 16:30, 28 July 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - Obvious promotional. The references by the user above are from the website of the subject. Clicking through on any of the links on that page shows most are press release/promotional stories. Caffeyw (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are news coverage published by third parties although they are not all available online. STSC (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have significantly improved the article to be more encyclopedic and less promotional. STSC (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article still reads as promotional, plus references are company produced reports, the company website, etc. The sections with references elsewhere are not about the company. ie A section posts about needing sex education, and links to a website supporting that, however those references have nothing to do with supporting the notability of the company itself. Caffeyw (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article has been tagged, it would continue to be cleaned up through regular editing. STSC (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After watching this since it was nominated I am going for keep. It's a weak article, but it is improving. Tigerboy1966  22:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• stubify by removal of non-independently sourced content. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Hosseini[edit]

Hossein Hosseini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The lead of the article says he plays for a pro league. Is that a false statement? If not, then what is the problem? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  He may be signed to a club in a fully pro league, but he has yet to actually play for them. WP:NFOOTBALL specifically says: A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't really follow this sport, but isn't it reasonable to assume that he'll be playing in one of the team's upcoming games? Or does the team maintain a permanent contingent of second-stringers that play only when a first-stringer becomes unavailable?

I guess I'm asking, if he isn't notable now, but could become notable at any moment simply by participating in a game, is it worth deleting the article? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming he'll play, whether its a reasonable assumption or not, is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and never grounds for notability. That being said, as a second choice goalkeeper his chances of playing a league match are virtually zero unless the first choice keeper is injured. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Simply fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Nima1024 (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It really seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Sundostund (talk) 18:57, 18 August 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, and G11 as this is clearly intended to promote "Cloud Network Bank". The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Network banking[edit]

Network banking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reads like an essay, no sources, no evidence anyone actually uses this term. Original PROD reason was: "As written now, this is unsourced and doesn't even make sense. My guess is that whatever concept this author was going for is already covered in another article. Unless sources can be provided to show that this is a notable standalone concept, it should be deleted." Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was going to suggest redirection, but realized there probably isn't a good target. The article seems to be saying that many companies now use the internet for banking, or for transfer of funds. It's really saying nothing of consequence, it's unsourced, and I don't even think it's a relevant search term that needs redirecting. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It looks to me like it's talking about human networking, not computer networking. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It explicitly says "electronic" and "cloud system computing", so I'd guess computer networking. Ansh666 02:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that now. The first time I read it, I didn't. That furthers the point that it's too confusing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Qwyrxian. Doesn't make sense to me. Ansh666 02:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Worthless page. Its only category, Category:Cashless Emerging Economy should also be deleted, usually this should be taken to categories for discussion, but I think an exception can be made if this article is the only one in there. Wagner (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.110 (talk) [reply]

• The above comment was posted by 149.254.51.110 (talk), and was forged to appear to be from Wagner (talk · contribs) by 149.254.51.225 (talk). Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Four days after this gets deleted, the category can be speedily deleted under C1. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Worthless title for an article and incomprehensible text. A look at the history is interesting as it seems to have been created by someone trying to promote something called the Cloud Network Bank. That might be a clue as to the intended topic, and cloud network banking seems to be a buzz-word at present - see eg this article in The Economist. If it is not adequately covered elsewhere in WP it probably ought to be. It is not quite the same thing as Online banking. But this article is not about it either. --AJHingston (talk) 12:30, 13 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academic programs in acoustics[edit]

Academic programs in acoustics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A fair amount of work has went into this page, and I'm not keen to see it lost, but on the other hand, this does seem like a textbook case of WP:NOTDIR. Unless a compelling argument can be made for why we should keep this (AFAIK, no other disciplines have such lists), I think this one has to go the way of the dodo. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as proposer. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's implied by the fact you nominated it for deletion here; don't restate it in formatting that suggests a !vote by a separate commenter. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this is necessarily a WP:NOTDIR issue unless it included non-notable educational institutions (in which case that problem would still just be solved by removing those). If there aren't such lists for other disciplines at preset, why shouldn't there be? Aren't the programs offered by institutions of higher learning significant facts about them, such that indexing them together by that fact is encyclopedic? But I think we need to discuss whether "program" is a meaningful enough threshold for inclusion so it doesn't just include every college/university that offered a single course or even merely covered the subject in the context of a broader course. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIR as the programs themselves are not notable. ^King Jakob _C2 19:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete besides failing WP:NOTDIR, there is no signifigant independent coverage of this topic, and certainly no independent coverage of a list such as this. In addition, all references appear to be primary sources, and hence this article at least borders on being a platorm for promotion. Finally, I agree that the programs are not notable, although the corresponding instituions might be notable. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:42, 19 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marlys Pearson[edit]

Marlys Pearson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has not received significant coverage. Article's sole reliable source only mentions the subject in passing. Most of the article's information is unreferenced. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Searched Google, Google Books, Academic OneFile, unable to find any articles about the author or even a professional book review. The award nomination is not enough has to be a winner of a major award. The easiest path for notability for authors is book reviews, but can't find any. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:42, 19 August 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. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Midget Race Car[edit]

Solar Midget Race Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability, no sources. A search for sources found no proof of notability, nor much information reH ghun ghunwI' 17:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep. notability established through a check of gBooks; article rewritten (it appears to have been a WP:COPYVIO of text spread around on multiple sites) using reliable sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the article dates back to 2006, so those other sites might be copying it, instead of the other way around. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Revised version is good. reH ghun ghunwI' 18:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep revised version -Drdisque (talk) 16:13, 13 August 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) 20:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lofgren[edit]

Mike Lofgren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-noteworthy political figure known for one event, and sources solely reflect that one event. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Probably notable as an author, even for a single book; it is in 813 libraries a/c Worldcat, and the article cites a review in Booklist; I'm checking for more. Single event does not apply in anuy case: h';e's notable for his political work, for the articlehe published, and for his book. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's not greatly notable, but he's notable enough for a Wikipedia page according to our criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: He has not been shown to be a notable author per WP:CREATIVE. I could care less about how many libraries his one book is in. Probably notable doesn't cut it. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not really an "event" that he's noted for -- he did not get embroiled in a one-off scandal or became a victim of a crime. He is notable because he spent his entire working life in the Republican Party, and then wrote a book denouncing their current strategy and tactics. The book, and the article that preceded it, got widespread coverage, and today Lofgren is quoted in the news media as an expert on the U.S. political process. He has been quoted on this topic for nearly two years now, most recently five days ago. Sue Gardner (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is this "widespread coverage" beyond the topic he's known for? More to the point, where was it covered much beyond unreliable sources like Truthout and Policymic? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added this to the article: "Since the publication of his book, Lofgren has been interviewed by the news media on issues such as "the death by self-infliction of the Republican Party,"[17][18] dysfunction in both U.S. major political parties[19][20][21] and Republican filibustering in the U.S. Senate.[22]" with citations to Bill Moyers, Eliot Spitzer on Current TV and Pacifica Radio. Sue Gardner (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are those interviews about him, or simply about his points of view? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:46, 6 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Massively coverage by sources, as indicated above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BASIC. There are multiple secondary sources for his book. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 04:03, 14 August 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. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson[edit]

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A PROD not made by me was contested with the reasoning that "Deletion on the premise of "missing white woman syndrome" is horrifically racist and not basis for said deletion." However, that fails to establish my and others' main problem: this is a routine news story that was blown out of proportion due to missing white woman syndrome - WP:NOTNEWS applies. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:32, 12 August 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 August 12. Snotbot  t • c »  17:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for reasons I gave in the PROD and on the article talk. If "missing white woman syndrome" sounds racist to anyone, feel free to personally disregard that part. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Really doesn't meet that definition if others were killed beforehand. Somewhat routine, but an interstate manhunt and the first state of California Amber Alert in the age of Wireless Emergency Alerts, and that she was taken by somebody she knew, not a random person makes this far more than a MWWS case by far. Nate • (chatter) 18:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Missing white woman syndrome is not the main basis for this deletion. It's really just because this is a routine case that will probably not have lasting effects as the kidnapper was killed. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the syndrome is just a magnifier (at least how I see it). Without the somewhat notable parts, there's nothing to magnify. Oddly enough, I was just informed on an unrelated YouTube video that of about 800,000 annually reported missing children, about 258,000 were abducted by non-strangers. 115 were taken by strangers. So that it wasn't a case of "Stranger Danger" just makes it more routine. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Nate - somewhat routine, but first WEA Amber Alert in California, and rather unusual circumstances in the actual crime itself. Ansh666 18:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The alleged kidnapping and murder satisfy the parameters of WP:NOTABILITY. The media coverage is pretty substantial. It would be wrong bit to have an article on this event. JOJ ^Hutton 18:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Medium keep. I'd venture that over-coverage of crimes involving pretty white women (be they victims, suspects, or anything else) is the largest problem with modern media—or at least the problem that the least progress has been made on. If someone were to nominate Death of Caylee Anthony or Murder of Travis Alexander for deletion, part of me would be inclined to support (though I think I'd resist the urge). That's because those were stories where there was literally nothing that made them special, other than the fact that the cable news networks decided to pay attention to them. This case was a bit more complex: There was a major police operation that included an FBI officer killing somebody, and a widely disseminated AMBER alert. And, perhaps most importantly, the media's involvement in this case, if somewhat hysterical, can be argued to have had a legitimate ethical basis (namely raising public awareness, thereby helping to find her), unlike with Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias, where the stories were famous for being famous, and had no other newsworthiness. So, while I don't have too much of a problem with playing the "but why was there substantial coverage?" game, I think in this case there is a legitimate answer to that question. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 19:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sources call the tune, and we dance to it. Not the other way around. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We follow the lead set by reliable sources - their editors decide whether a story is notable, not WP editors. We just follow their lead. --B2C 20:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what either of the above two comments have to do with this. The event is covered in multiple reliable sources, but there's no evidence of this being long-standing. An event just being covered doesn't mean notability. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be rather hard to provide such evidence, seeing as this is still largely a current event. You're reversing the burden of proof here. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 21:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but direct DiMaggio's name to 'Anderson Kidnapping and Murders'. I don't like to glorify criminals, but the circumstances of his crimes are noteworthy: particularly the Amber Alert going out over phones in California, and that the accused repeated a crime of his father's. tigerstripes (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved this here, as the user originally posted this on the talk page of this AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm sort of neutral on the notability of this, but I would like to say that I think Tigerstripes brings up a valid suggestion of renaming the article if it is kept. While the Hannah Anderson's kidnapping did take a large amount of the focus, there were also two murders that occurred. Should we rename the article to reflect this? I'm kind of undecided on that point, as the kidnapping took predominant focus, although the murders were also frequently mentioned in the press. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, though to what I'm not sure. Ansh666 23:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson kidnapping and murders (murders and kidnapping, maybe) seems best to me, if we keep it at all. Seems undue weight to focus on the one of five who survived. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support InedibleHulk's suggestion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's Tigerstripes' suggestion, to be fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I second IH's support of TS' good idea! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I back your encouragement of the tiger endorsement, and the circle's complete. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that using the surname is probably the best. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'd say Anderson murders and kidnapping, to go in chronological order (though I'm not too sure that it matters). But yes, it should be renamed. Ansh666 19:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also in criminological order (that is, murder is more serious). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the proposed name as well, so I support move to Anderson murders and kidnapping if kept. I'll start a thread on the talk page as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete There have been a large number of articles added covering crimes that have no lasting impact or national/global scope in spite of WP:EVENT. While kidnapping did cross multiple states, this kidnapping has not demonstrated that it will have any impact afterwards. At the risk of speculating, I would guess that this kidnapping won't have any lasting impact (beyond affecting the Amber Alert system) in the future. IMO, anything related to the Amber Alerts should go in the Amber Alerts article rather than here. Transcendence (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, so technically satisfies WP:N. But we collectively decided that mere routine news events, or routine crimes, while they satisfy the news judgement of newsmedia editors seeking to maintain viewership/readership, are not automatically encyclopedic. This story rises above "routine crime" in that it allegedly included a double murder, by a family friend, followed by the first use of celphone statewide Amber alert, and concluded with a shootout killing the alleged badguy by the FBI and a rescue of the victim. Thus it has several elements which elevate it above the average murder or kidnapping, just as the kidnapping of the Cleveland trio, or the emergency landing of a plane by Chesley Sullenberger rise above similar but less encyclopedic events. Edison (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the widespread and reliably sourced coverage, it was a case of double murder (and the killing of a family dog), had unique significance in the use of the Amber Alert system, involved a protracted search by hundreds of volunteers, included a surprise appearance by four concerned citizens on horseback (one of whom was a retired sheriff), and culminated in an FBI shoot-out and the safe return of the kidnap victim to her father. New information indicates that the perpetrator's father once also held a 16 year old girl captive at gunpoint and that he, the father, committed suicide on the exact same date, 15 years earlier, that marked the perpetrator's death in this case. Certainly these elements will make this case memorable for years to come. 70.36.137.217 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're certain, you have a better memory than me! But yeah, it'll make a good TV movie, and TV movies are often looked back on for early roles of new stars. I'm almost tempted to change my mind to weak delete. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.William Jockusch (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, as this goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS for the following reasons. A) It involved much more than a simple kidnapping, but also involves murder and arson, not a routine combination. B) It was the top headline on national websites (CNN) and radio (CBS Radio) across multiple days (I can't confirm television, as I don't watch much, and does NOR apply to AfD debates? <grin>) C) The incident is used in analysis of the Amber Alert system in general. See [19] under heading "Why Hannah's case was unusual". Although it certainly must be acknowledged that the incident predicates the discussion, but it appears likely this incident will become part of the long-term dialogue regarding Amber Alert. For what it's worth, I think this incident also goes beyond MWWS, as when the story first became front-page material the ethnicity was not established, and Ethan's body had not been discovered so the initial Amber alerts included two individuals. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Alex (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can't imagine how anybody would oppose the presence of this page. It is a very notable and infamous kidnapping and murder case, and it has received national and international news coverage for nearly two weeks, and will receive more coverage for a long time afterward. Not to mention, it's all described as an "unusual case" by many people, including law enforcement. Cyanidethistles (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I slightly agree with above. smileguy91^talk 04:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as totally tragic that this story is, there is no encyclopaedic analyse of the event in the article, no attempt to demonstrate any lasting significance to this crime, it is just a news story and as such has no place here by policy, is should be over at Wikinews. LGA _talk^edits 09:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To dismiss this story as 'routine news' blown out of proportion is incredibly naive -- yes, kidnappings happen, but they rarely result in massive manhunts and FBI agents immediately getting involved. Lots of less remarkable, actually routine crimes have their own wikipedia pages simply because of the ensuing media circus. Why target one of the few pages which is actually notable? I am the radiohead (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FYI, the name of the article is also up for discussion, see Talk:Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This case involved the Amber Alert system in multiple states, which is highly unusual. It was also the first time, California used their new statewide cellphone alert notification system. It's also a case where a victim who was not abducted due to a custody battle was rescued. The case is still in the national media almost two weeks later, as more information is continuing to come out. Now, there's discussion about Hannah's use of social media so soon after she was rescued. The events of this case are not what I would consider routine at all. Laladoodle92 (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As creator, I believe this is an event that will probably be made into a Lifetime movie (mentioned above). Significant coverage suffices notability guidelines. Tinton5 (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A widely covered story that's still developing. And it doesn't fit the "missing white woman" stereotype. Too many odd and unique facets to the story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample and ongoing coverage in numerous nationwide reliable and verifiable sources. The efforts to trivialize this case and justify deletion based on a supposed "missing white woman syndrome" are both utterly disturbing and completely irrelevant. Our job is not to judge the reasons for coverage in reliable sources; but to determine that it is being covered in these sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, This may not even have been a kidnapping, extremely premature to have such a page asserting "kidnapping" until investigations are completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.186.134.231 (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it wasn't, it was treated and referred to as one. Ansh666 06:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This one is pretty obvious guys (and gals). It's still a national story and clearly meets the notability guidelines and you want to delete the article? I just don't understand. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will never understand the deletionist mentality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep extensively covered in national news, a multi state incident involving alleged kidnapping, torture, multiple murder and arson, and fear of IED's. Its not our problem if the media gave it too much attention.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Again, per WP:NOTNEWS PrairieKid (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Merge into Amber Alert, which already has Amber's case. Most of the reasons to keep don't have to do with the case, but more with the Amber Alert System anyway. PrairieKid (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, most of our reasons have to do with passing WP:N and WP:CRIME in regards to the unusual circumstances of the case (arson/murder/kidnapping/IEDs/etc.). Ansh666 21:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly notable. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP It is a notable story as it is receiving coverage in newspapers from all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.169.71 (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no evidence of long-term effects of this event, failing NOTNEWS and NEVENT. This is type of story Wikinews is prime for, and mention in Amber Alert can point to that, but it is not an encyclopedic topic. Note: broad international coverage does not equate to notability, we are looking for the long-tail in sources, not a burst of broad coverage. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument is bogus. You can't possibly know how this story is going to turn out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's a reason to not have created the article in the first place, per NEVENT. Event articles should only be created once the event is shown to be long-term notable. While there is google news hits about the event, they remain recaps and primary sourcing and very little about effects that the event will have on the future. This is why if people want to create articles on current events, start at Wikinews, and we can transwiki in when the event proves notable. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That argument is equally bogus. You have no way to know anything about it long-term. Six months from now, if it has come to nothing, you could ask for it to be deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→
• Keep This is similar to the attempt to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuaed Abdo Ahmed. Every time there is a crime with national and international coverage that is every bit as serious as a terrorist attack, there are numerous attempts to call it non-notable and delete it if it has "no lasting effect". It almost seems that the number of people who try to delete such articles could be part of a deliberate disinformation effort as part of a planned and coordinated attack staged to look like a non-notable crime. In the case of Ahmed, it was a young man with parents from Yemen who had made recent trips to Dubai and Yemen with indications he "liked" Islam, hostage taking and attacking tanks on his facebook page. Redhanker (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't confuse fanatical deletionism with conspiracy to censor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't forget that millions of people eat chicken eggs every morning. Doesn't mean it's a deliberate and coordinated attack on chickens (at least not by the consumers). Just a matter of common interests/disinterests. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and millions of people, after that routine breakfast, kidnap a family from their home, bring them to their own home, torture and kill the victims, torch their own house, and then drive a thousand miles with one of the victims, and get gunned down by police. Yep, it happens millions of times every day. Nothing special about it. It gets a lot of news coverage, but wikipedians are smarter than national news reporters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point. That was a response to Redhanker's theory of a deletionist conspiracy, nothing to do with the murders. Many people independently eat eggs, many propose questionable articles for deletion. Murder and kidnapping is also routine, but not to an egg breakfast extent. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have missed the point. There's not an overt "conspiracy" as Redhanker alleges, but there is mostly definitely a zealous effort, by some, to impose a pedantic, narrow-minded viewpoint on Wikipedia, that effort being considered somehow more important than the fact it makes Wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This event may very well stay in the news for a while. SOXROX (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has gotten 47791 hits thus far in under a week. People like me come to Wikipedia for information. You get updated and more accurate and detailed information about anything in the news. This gets reliable coverage. There are more than 2,100 children a day reported missing in America alone. The news media chooses which ones to give coverage to, based on what ratings they can milk out of it. This case, like others of its kind, will continue to get coverage for awhile now. Dream Focus 09:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Wikinews then, which is specifically set up to provide wiki-style news reporting. We're an encyclopedia, and there's no evidence this event will have any influence in the future. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't have evidence anything will be of any influence in the future. You think anyone will remember most of the famous people we have today, or most of the kings of the past, or the majority of films, books, comics, games, and whatnot that have articles? And no one uses wikinews, ever, never have and never will. Wikipedia is not paper, we're not running out of space, so no reason to have things that bring people here in droves. Nothing gained by deleting this. Dream Focus 17:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is an encyclopedia and there are limits to what is appropriate to include, NOTNEWS stands as one of those. People will read Wikinews once editors actually start using it for what's not appropriate for an encyclopedia, where issues like notability don't get involved in article creation. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go to https://en.wikinews.org/ and click random article a few times. There is no way possible Wikinews will ever catch on. The main page gets less hits per day than this article is getting now! [20] LOL! No. It was a failed project from the start, and years later, its still dead and ignored. Dream Focus 18:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • When I want overview information on something, I go to Wikipedia first. Wikinews? Worthless. I go to CNN or BBC if I want news. Then I see what Wikipedia has on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. Encyclopedic long-term notability has not been established.LM2000 (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reached both national and international coverage. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For an event, a flurry of coverage isn't what you look for. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What you look for is "long-term notability", which you have no way to know yet. If nothing comes of it, you can always propose deletion at an appropriate time, such as six months to a year or two from now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the BLP violation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to include the murders. If a new book were getting this much press, it would absolutely warrant its own article. Notability for crime is different, but with multiple segments on sources like the NBC Nightly News, it easily passes any reasonable standard for notability. Andrew³²⁷ 15:40, 19 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Maguire[edit]

Colin Maguire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Only claims of notability are winning an online story contest and having some short stories in non-notable publications. Furthermore, the article has no reliable sources, with 8 out of the 11 references being pages on Amazon.com. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has no coverage in independent reliable sources that I could find. The body of work seems to be a bunch of short stories that have been included in some collections through small press, or in low circulation magazines, but there's no literary criticism about these works that I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:44, 19 August 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 Sean Hayes (actor). (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazy Mills Productions[edit]

Hazy Mills Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no doubt that this organisation has produced some notable TV shows but notability is not inherited. The organisation itself does not seem to meet the general notability guideline and the article does not establish notability. AussieLegend (✉) 09:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator, per WP:IAR. The rules are pretty self-evidently flawed if a TV company with 5 US TV shows on the air(!), including 3 on NBC, isn't considered notable. Alternatively, merge with Sean Hayes, which would achieve nothing other than making Wikipedia harder to navigate for end-users, but would allow the exact same content to continue to exist uncontroversially while working around notability rules because, while Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is a strange double standard in notability requirements between pages and page sections. -Halo (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 5 August 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) 16:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - Per nom, notability is not inherited because shows they make may be notable. Caffeyw (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge somewhere, probably to Sean Hayes. The company gets a ton of mentions[21] and occasional significant coverage.[22] Almost all of the mentions name Todd Milliner, Sean Hayes' partner in the venture, but he does not seem to have a Wikipedia article of his own; maybe he should. In any case this production company gets way too many independent mentions to be deleted, if a redirect is possible. --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added several references to the article to see if I could get it up to notability, but I still don't think it makes it. However, the material should be merged somewhere else. If the result is delete, maybe it could be userfied to User:Halo so that the material isn't lost. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Sean Hayes. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:45, 19 August 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, and therefore defaulting to keep. Reasonable arguments on both sides and further relisting seems unlikely to help. Kubigula (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York Sun Works[edit]

New York Sun Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A promotional article about a relatively minor group doing relatively minor local events. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York Sun Work dedicates to the sciences education which is extraordinary special. The info about the organization would be helpful and useful for audience who want to know the hydroponic and sustainability education in public school. Roger0206 (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Each one of the projects may be small, but there are a number of them, and they have received coverage in the media, which I believe is the important thing for notability. If the text is too promotional, let's just edit it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:10, 30 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Keep As with this AFD, which is for a project of this group, this organization meets notability guidelines. This New York Sun Works has plenty of coverage in consideration to the size of the organization and it's projects. Coverage from so many reliable sources merits this article. Local events by local groups can be notable and have reliable sourcing to confirm their worth, being small and local does not automatically exclude the possibility of meeting our policies and guidelines. Judicatus | Talk 08:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking broad WP:SIGCOV outside New York classrooms. Appears to be a promotional or advocacy piece and fails WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Riband (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 August 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) 16:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep per Judicatus. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Blue Riband. Caffeyw (talk) 01:37, 16 August 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) 20:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I Did It Again: The Best of Britney Spears[edit]

Oops! I Did It Again: The Best of Britney Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable album. Barring sources that verify the album's existence/release dates in various territories, there are only three sources here that discuss it in detail - one of which cites the LiveJournal community Oh No They Didn't as a source. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article clearly passes WP:GNG. It doesn't have hundreds of sources regarding it, but it has several reliable ones that have a good amount of information. I'm sure I can also find a few more to add to the article as well. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The information from Live Journal appears in the Idolator [23] story. It looks to me as though only the track listing came from Live Journal; I don't think that invalidates this source. I searched but didn't find additional reliable sources. —rybec 00:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per Status' reasoning. Arre 04:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge / redirect to Britney Spears discography. Despite Status' assertion that this meets WP:GNG, I have to disagree. Amazon generally cannot be used as a source to prove notability, and the other sources denote little more than a paragraph, which I'm surprised at for a compilation of someone with major commercial success. No hits on a news or book search, and a web search brings back either the existing sources or fan / self-published sites. No evidence of chart placing either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has cited Amazon as being why it's notable... it's been the subject of several articles by reliable sources. As I said, there doesn't have to be thousands to establish notability. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been mentioned in reliable sources, sure, but I don't think the coverage is significant enough for someone of Britney Spears' stature. I'd expect coverage in Billboard chart placings, and maybe an article in the New York Times culture section that showed how she was going to show Lady Gaga how female pop is really done ... anyway, you get my drift. Not significant coverage, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge / Redirect to Britney Spears discography. Per what Ritchie333 said. --PlatinumFire 12:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Status and Arre. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:15, 5 August 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) 16:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. All of her other albums, studio and compilation, have articles so I don't see the merit in singling one out as not notable. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• IAR keep per Dralwik. The article emphasises the obscurity of this recording, to the point that I wonder whether Ms. Spears is aware of it. But giving a little leeway for the sake of completeness is reasonable. —rybec 22:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, but the problem with your approach is that it gives people leeway to add bootlegs in the interest of "completeness". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote carelessly; I meant to advocate for an exception, not anarchy. If this were an article about a bootleg recording which had received coverage on Allmusic, Yahoo Music and Idolator, yes, I might say the same thing. Because bootlegs are often illegitimate, they aren't promoted and receive little press. Because bootlegs are often traded surreptitiously, a skeptical reader can't go to a shop or library to confirm the track listing or other details. When I wrote "IAR" I was being a bit sloppy: what I really meant was that the sources for this article, while adequate for WP:V, are marginal for WP:N, and that for the reason that Dralwik mentioned I advocate bending the one rule of notability this time. I thought it would be obvious that I don't advocate ignoring all the rules, all the time, such that there should be articles about every recording. —rybec 15:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back through the article and done a thorough look for sources, and come up with one more. I think there's just about enough now to tip it over the edge of WP:GNG, so I'm switching to Keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 14 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Birmingham Liberal Democrats[edit]

University of Birmingham Liberal Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Society has not established notability OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 16:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Like most student clubs, this one is clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if solid sources get added. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:48, 19 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ardnore Residential Area[edit]

Ardnore Residential Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: An orphaned article about a residential area, tagged for 18 months but no improvement or attempt to fix any of the issues. Nothing encyclopaedic to be read here. I can't find even one WP:RS to verify its notability. Certainly not a NPOV. ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a notable place. Snappy (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable, no citations to verify how special it is, completely POV. Funny how such an obvious candidate for deletion has hidden from scrutiny for so long. The creator name Property Edit possibly hints that this could have been created for commercial advertising (purely my speculation). — O'Dea (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if solid sources get added. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:49, 19 August 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. Per WP:SK#1: nominator urges merging, not deletion (and see Wikipedia:Merge and delete on why "deleted and merged" is such a problematic outcome to request). Please attempt to deal with merging through normal editing and discussion, per WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Muhammad Asad's life[edit]

Timeline of Muhammad Asad's life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted and merged to: Muhammad Asad. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 12 August 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.