Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday May 17 (Fri) May 16 (Thu) May 15 (Wed) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 27 August	29 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Krakowiak[edit]

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

After over 9 years, still unref blp - an editor recently added an external link to his record company at the bottom of the page, but no refs, certainly not reliable ones. I couldn't find anything to support notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Gong show 08:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gong show 08:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So far I am not seeing any notability; I started a deletion discussion on pl wiki - let's see if other Polish editors can find anything to redeem this. pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2013:08:21:Tomasz Krakowiak (comment: nope, article deleted from pl wiki too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 21 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, L Faraone 00:03, 29 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 result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Krong Pinang bombing[edit]

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

The article is only a few sentences and past its creation time with no expansion. This is WP:NOTNEWS and the content can either go on List of terrorist incidents, January-June, 2013 or on some page of the insurgency in south Thailand.

Related concurrent nominations:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 2013 Beirut bombing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Cotabato City bombing

Lihaas (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to demonstrate or make any claim that it will have any lasting significance, it therefore fails the inclusion policy. It received news coverage because it was a news story. LGA _talk^edits 20:56, 21 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, L Faraone 00:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Stephen O'Malley. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ginnungagap (band)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this band. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure there's enough material in reliable sources to warrant an individual article. The best I could find were these reviews. If deleted, I recommend changing the hatnote at Ginnungagap to "see Stephen O'Malley". Gong show 02:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stephen O'Malley - I agree with Gongshow, though I think Ginnungagap (band) could be a reasonable redirect to Stephen O'Malley, so the hatnote there (and anywhere else it pops up) wouldn't need to be changed. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:26, 17 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!*} 01:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/redirect - There might be enough coverage for it to slide by, but a safer bet would be to redirect to Stephen O'Malley. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:46, 21 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, L Faraone 23:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stephen O'Malley. If reliable sources become available, the article can be recreated. I'm not seeing anything currently, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Cardiff. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff North (geographical area)[edit]

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

There is no such geographical place as Cardiff North unambiguously defined by any reliable sources. This article seems to be an area based on an arbitrary line invented by the author of the article. True, there are/were political parliamentary constituencies, Cardiff North, Cardiff South, Cardiff South and Penarth and Cardiff West, but these are well defined and already have Wikipedia articles. I came across these invented areas after an editor began wikilinking them to the words "north", "south", "west" etc. in Cardiff articles. The image in is based on political allegiances (while the map in West, South and East seems to have been invented by a wiki editor). Subsequently I've noticed a discussion has taken place on Talk:Cardiff North (geographical area), including an opinion from a non-involved independent editor which makes it clear this seems to be WP:OR and innappropriate. Cardiff isn't Berlin or Jerusalem, with walls or defining internal borders - time for these invented and confused articles to go, in my view.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar reasons - these geographical areas are an invention and open to dispute:

Sionk (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are not separate places or significant officially defined areas. London has separate North, East and South articles, but the Cardiff areas are not as well recognised and coverage appears to be insufficient to meet the notability guideline. Peter James (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content back to Cardiff or split into articles on localities. There is no robust definition for these four divisions of Cardiff, so that where they start and end is a matter of POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 17 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!*} 01:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - anything salvageable back to Cardiff. The specific divisions of north/south/east/west are all a matter of opinion and it will screw everything up if we let people add what they want to division articles like this that have no clear borders. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A simple Google search will reveal that these terms are in widespread usage, far from being invented as the nominator claims. Admittedly, the areas are loosely defined, but the same is true for North London, etc. so this does not constitute a reason for deletion. These divisions of the city are culturally different and therefore warrant retention. The simple addition of references can solve the problem of WP:OR. Perhaps a constructive, rather than hostile, approach to this issue is more appropriate. Welshleprechaun 15:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly the North London article is fairly barmy, with climate data for example, but at least its existence and definition is cited to Boundary Commission documents. The simplest solution to the North/South/East/West Cardiff problem, like you say, would be to add reliable sources to the articles. I've searched using Google too and couldn't see any, other than when they were used in the normal way as commonly understood adjectives, or referred to political constituencies. If I was aware of these areas being commonly defined, I wouldn't have nominated the article for discussion. Sionk (talk) 17:30, 24 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, L Faraone 23:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename as North Cardiff and expand. The area is not usually called "Cardiff North" (except as a parliamentary constituency) but is often referred to as North Cardiff - for example here, here, here, here, here, etc.. It should be renamed to avoid confusion with the parliamentary constituency. Similar sources can no doubt (I haven't checked) be found for the other areas, which should also be renamed. If the consensus is to merge content elsewhere, the best article in which to do so would be Geography of Cardiff, rather than the main Cardiff article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge It's worth mentioning somewhere that there is a general area called North Cardiff, perhaps in the Geography of Cardiff article. Most of this article is just unreferenced trivia.HamTin (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect all into Cardiff. I don't see there as being enough for these all to warrant individual pages at this time. Technical 13 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect all in Cardiff - for reasons which others have said above. Neutrality^talk 05:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could one of these merger proponents please explain why they want to merge it with Cardiff, rather than with Geography of Cardiff? Cardiff is a big(gish) and historic city, with much to write about. The spatial distribution and characteristics of neighbourhoods within the city are clearly suitable for discussion within the smaller Geography article, rather than the overarching article on the entire city. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator. Does not meet notability guidelines + unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiruning (talk • contribs) 03:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge I'd just like to point out the list of "Notable Places in North Cardiff" is quite frankly ridiculous - since when did every office or warehouse become "notable" and I find it laughable that someone's added "Marks & Spencer Simply Food Store"! This section is definitely not worth keeping - most of these notable places are no where near notable enough. The other parts should be taken from the other areas and merged together. Adrianw9 (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jennifer Daugherty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope.

In the previous AfD, a few people said it was too soon to tell whether this was notable or not. But now that the trial is finished, there hasn't been anything that suggests this is more than just murder. Transcendence (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just a news article there is no attempt at encyclopaedic analyse in the article and cant find any sources providing any. LGA _talk^edits 09:10, 15 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!*} 02:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Horrible story, but not an encyclopedic event per WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, persistent coverage for years, meaning this is not a routine event, thus passing notability guidelines. No clear advantage to readers or the encyclopedia in removing well sourced, policy compliant information. --cyclopia ^speak! 20:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per persistent coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:20, 26 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, L Faraone 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both notable and persistent. A good article could be written about this, and there's plenty of sources available. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not routine news. Particularly atrocious murders do remain of permanent public interest. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-axiomatic reasoning system[edit]

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

Scholar hits only for a few publications by a single author, some are cited but no evidence for broader acceptance as a scientific concept. a13ean (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add the category, which should be "T", and can't figure out how to add it now. =/ a13ean (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD debates (Science and technology) category added. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! a13ean (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the theories/systems coming from Douglas Hofstadter's lab. N is dubious, although there seem to be a few researchers (really, just a few) who consistently cite P. Wang's articles on "non-axiomatic reasoning". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a name for a specific topic, I found it represented in Google scholar only by the works of P. Wang, without enough citations or related works by other scholars to convince me of its notability. There are other hits, but with a broader meaning that does not confer notability on this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 21 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!*} 02:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any article that mentions a "though leader" and cites only that person sounds dubious. This is not my field, but think the more common term is non-monotonic logic? But not sure a merge is worth it here. W Nowicki (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is right at the borderline: several publications, but all by the same author and none with >100 cites (per google scholar). However, there is a book out now and the publisher appears to be legit, and that with the peer-reviewed publications tips the scale to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesser Cartographies (talk • contribs)

Keep - Borderline is good enough for me. ~KvnG 21:49, 25 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, L Faraone 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Theories do not have to be accepted in order to be covered here, they just have to be noticed. When dealing with borderline topics, and in the absence of other criteria, one of the ways of looking at it is the importance of the person who developed it. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as referenced only in the works of "thought leader" Pel Wang. Possibly rewrite to an article about the book, which seems marginally notable, but not all books published by World Scientific Publishing are reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DGG notes "one of the ways of looking at it is the importance of the person who developed it" which seems to clearly point to this being unimportant. I read the first chapter of the book and I admit to being irritated by the fact that the author uses "axiomatic" to mean something other than what everyone else uses it to mean. The book states that he has been working on this for 30 years. If it had any significance many more people would have referenced it by now. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Kung Fu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM; no reliable journalism, no critical commentary, no chart positions, nothing. I consider myself an expert on the topic of Lana Del Rey, and I have contributed to and written extensive portions of every article related to her on Wikipedia. From the extensive research I've done on the singer, I have encountered mention of No Kung Fu, but the lack of reliable sources has led others (including myself) to believe it's an urban legend. Almost every single song on the alleged EP appears on her debut album Lana Del Ray a.k.a. Lizzy Grant. Thevampireashlee (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm unable to find coverage for this unreleased demo/EP/thing. Whether or not it exists, it appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Gong show 08:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 21 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, L Faraone 23:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After searching for sources, I don't think this really exists. If it does, it meets no notability guidelines whatsoever due to lack of coverage. T C N7JM 12:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strings (Arthur Loves Plastic album)[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor 114.150.82.38, who made the request at WT:AFD. Their rationale is posted verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion - except to note that the title doesn't seem like a likely redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable album. Fails WP:NALBUMS. It hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 114.150.82.38 (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Just a bunch on bad external links trying to publicise the album. The only reference is a dead blog post hosted on the artists site, not a reliable source. The external links are just linkspam. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. These articles seem to be coming under attack from a anonymous IP (114.145.24.94, 114.145.174.2, 114.164.216.48, 114.164.64.248, 114.150.82.38) which on being frustrated in their attempts to blank the articles (redirecting them to 'Arthur Love Plastic'), then nominates them as articles for deletion. This is not contributing to an encyclopaedia, this is vandalism. I object to the deletion of this article, which relates to an artist notable within the Washington, D.C. arts culture. memphisto 16:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, you may not - I completed the nomination as per WP:AGF, which usually serves me well. On point, you mention nothing about whether the album itself is notable - and that's really the only part that matters for the purposes of this debate. The artist might be notable, sure - but is the album? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:58, 19 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!*} 15:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In his 'strong keep' above, User:Memphisto, the creator of all(?) the Arthur Loves Plastic album articles, appears to be relying on accusations of vandalism as the main reason for keeping this article. He did the same at the recent Articles for deletion/Special When Lit which was closed as no consensus. However, for this article to be kept notability has to be shown. Now as an admin who has briefly tried to get the two edit-warring parties to talk to one another (see User talk:114.145.146.143) I'm not going to formally !vote here, but I will say that a quick Google search didn't turn up the necessary "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for me; there's none in the article; and none has been forthcoming from elsewhere. —SMALL JIM 22:18, 27 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, L Faraone 23:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Ideas (Australian TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG after a good-faith search for sources. —me_and 23:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, it was a real TV show (albeit, in my opinion, a glorified infomercial), but I have not been able to locate any third party coverage of it. It does not help at all that most of the search terms I can think of bring up a lot of false positives, so there may be things out there that I just can't find. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:15, 14 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 21 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, L Faraone 23:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its not notable, no significant coverage, has no lasting legacy, nothing that makes it encyclopedic. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Apologies for earlier misclose, fault is mine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever After High[edit]

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

We are not a catalog--this is the equivalent of a list of Lego boxes. There's only one reliable reference, and that one does not discuss these dolls in any kind of meaningful way. And even if it did, there is no reason why an encyclopedia should include a list of dolls. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the only piece of significant coverage I could find. If an independent article is not warranted at this time I would support a redirect to Monster High#Spin-off as a plausible search term. Gong show 17:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I could live with a redirect for a plausible search term. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the publisher's weekly piece certainly counts toward WP:N. [1] is probably an acceptable source. There is also a bit at [2] and a couple of other equivalent things from the bussiness side (all shorter than the Fool link). I think it's over the bar, but just barely. Largely turns on if sdccblog.com is reliable, and it certainly looks to be. Hobit (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's title does have the word "unofficial" and "blog" in it, it looks to be an organized
Keep per Hobit. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, plus don't believe it meets notability. Also, the cites are not significant/reliable one being a youtube video. Caffeyw (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any specific problems with the sources listed above? Also, the youtube content appears to be from the company, making it a reasonable primary source (don't help with notability of course, but is a reliable source). Hobit (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation. It's a new line of toys/dolls but doesn't clear the notability bar for me. The SDCC blog is not useful for notabbility for a few reasons. Most blogs are not considered a reliable source, and this one in particular is labelled "San Diego Comc-Con Unofficial Blog" (emphasis added); and Mattel were an exhibitor at SDCC so it's independence is quiet questionable as well. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While it does have the words "unofficial" and "blog" in the title, I get the impression that is a historical artifact. The site has a managing editor, an editor-in-chief, etc. [3] Further, as it isn't part of SDCC, but rather is a dedicated source for covering it, I don't see an independence problem. Hobit (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even so, the blog covers on the the selection of topics is so narrow that I don;t credit this is as useful for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Hobit. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:12, 20 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 21 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, L Faraone 23:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the one hand, there's already a Wikia for them, so the information is not going to be unavailable. On the other, it's quite likely that a franchiser of this sort from this company wil become sufficiently well-known that there is certain to be material. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. No consensus for deletion. Discussion whether to merge or not can take place on the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, some politician's wife and notability is not inherited. And other than one unsourced line in the article, there is nothing but a photo of her. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about "notability is not inherited". It can be about being born in a royal family and taking the history of the family and their duties to the next level. Priyadarshini Raje Scindia is doing the same. If you still think she is not notable then you need to delete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diya_Kumari and half of those under the category of Indian female royalty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_female_royalty. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails per GNG. I removed much of the non-notable content. That is why there is only one line. But, in my view, the article should be deleted regardless. The lady has little by way of independent notable achievements. Given that there are (tens of) thousands of newspaper stories in India published every day, any appearance anywhere by a politician's wife will be reported somewhere; consequently, even a less than perfunctory mention in the press does not constitute notability. In my view, a notable event needs to be reported by a multiplicity of nationally known newspapers. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good to see you back after the break Fowler&fowler. All consequences were being settled in the first nomination in terms of notability and her contribution towards the society. Your allegation raised towards the article can be understood because you are good friends with Sitush who raised the previous deletion request. Your half of talk page is full by thanking him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fowler%26fowler and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fowler%26fowler#Priyadarshini_Raje_Scindia.Shobhit Gosain (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article, if anything, has been largely improved since the last deletion nomination. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There still seems to be little of note other than society tittle-tattle and sinecure positions. I really do struggle to see the notability here, which seems primarily to be literally inherited. Fowler&fowler summarises the issues pretty well and I note that much of the reporting is of the obsequious variety. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 21 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've had a long think and had a good look round for yet more sources. There is nothing here of substance except minor society sycophancy by people who still labour under the belief that she is royalty (she is not). Her primary notability is as the wife of a politician who happens to have various sinecures in his control, and of course notability is not inherited. Shobhit Gosain's arguments hold no weight in policy because WP:OSE applies and because their response to Fowler&fowler is nothing but yet another personal attack from them. Dusti seems not to have spotted that all we have in the article is namechecks and, of course, such things do not confer notability and are common in situations where sycophancy is involved. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DNA reported, she keeps on planning projects and exhibitions for children along with renovation of her famous heritage hotel, Taj Hotels - Usha Kiran Palace. DNA also referred her as a princess on the fifth para. She also does election campaign for her husband and its being applauded the millions, sorry I only got the videos, have a look. This clearly shows that its not about WP:OSE or WP:GNG. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Arguments for deletion based on not being notable just for inheritance by birth, famedom from husband's notability, holding various posts in small institutes and being ranked in various magazines for appearances are right. But they are the reasons for deletion if the person is only one of these. The subject here is a combo of all these points. A actor who appeared in 2 non-critical films fails WP:NACTOR. A writer who wrote only one book fails WP:NAUTHOR. A politician who lost in election and vanished from the field since then fails WP:POLITICIAN. But if this person is one and same, we have him as notable enough to stay. I stick by my previous keep opinion in old AfD pointing out that she is a socialite. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An accumulation of minor offices -and you do admit to them being minor - does not make someone any more notable than holding any one of those offices. I am a verifiable officeholder in numerous organisations but am not remotely a suitable subject for an article here. WP:GNG over-rides any subset guidelines and clearly states that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail - aside from sycophantic assumed-royalty articles in tat such as Hello, there is no detailed coverage of this person. Certainly, no detailed coverage of her various (minor) official positions. The only things she is notable for are being a wife of a notable person and enjoying the trappings of a false claim. Now, if we had List of people masquerading as royalty then perhaps she would deserve an entry in that but since we do not, the existing mention in her husband's article is sufficient. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the last AfD you said you didn't want to badger but you still did it and you are kinda doing it now again. But lets leave that aside; there is no medicine for behaviour. Also we cannot compare your office holdings with her's until we get to read about them. Don't underestimate yourself. Maybe you are good enough to be on Wikipedia.

Why do you call these sources as sycophantic? What are they getting by praising her? Also i don't get why you all are stressing on her not being royalty in a wrong way? The 1971 amendment regarding the Privy Purse in India in India abolished the titles and the payments made to the title holders from tax money. However, the fact remains that general public still considers them royalty. Whether their legal status says otherwise hardly matters here when general public considers them so. She has been listed in Top Princesses list and has been called so by New York Social Diary, Verve and is continuously referred so by numerous newspapers. She has received a full length article even if you neglect it . They say that when she and her mother-in-law arrive, they get a "rousing reception". Thats what a socialite is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That celeb gossip rags and similar unquestioningly call her royalty when the titles were legally abolished even before her birth merely confirms their unreliability. Although why anyone should have thought such things reliable in the first instance is beyond me. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias don't write about scientists alone. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:56, 28 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, L Faraone 23:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a socialite who was born into the erstwhile royal family of Baroda and who married into the erstwhile royal family of Gwalior. Regardless of whether or not the princely titles have any legal standing in India, the Indian society and popular press routinely recognize and style her as such, and she is followed by readers of the Indian press in that capacity. As a consequence of her membership in the houses of Gaekwar and Scindia, and her husband's political role, she has an assortment of various small roles that are themselves covered by the Indian press. It doesn't matter whether or not editors here feel that what she does is or isn't *important* - it matters whether or not it's *notable*, and the press coverage itself seems quite sufficient to sustain it her notability as a socialite of royal extraction. Mandalini (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot be born into an erstwhile royal family; that is like saying we are all born into erstwhile great apes of Africa. There are no royal families in India, no pretenders to thrones, no titular princes, etc etc. The actual rule of the rulers of various Indian princely states ended in 1947–48, but they were able to retain their titles, (some) remuneration, and (some) privileges (such as vanity license plates) until 28 December 1971, when the Government of India, at a stroke, abolished them all. This woman was born in 1975. The royal connection, in any case, was tenuous. See my vote below. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DEM - we do not "vote", but rather discuss issues and arrive at a consensus. You have repeatedly made your views clear; that being said, because you believe something to be true does not make it true. There are indeed erstwhile royal families, as is documented in much popular and professional coverage of the descendants of rulers, whether Indian or otherwise. You can hold whatever opinions you like, but the categorical fact remains that the descendants of the pre-1947 princes are routinely described and styled as royalty/pretenders/etc. - including by the Indian popular press. Mandalini (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not voting in any sense of the word, why do you have "keep" in boldface? Just leave a comment and let the presiding admin decide. Summarizing your comment in a binary choice is a vote. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least. I am not making a binary choice - I am making a recommendation (one of many possible ones), followed by an explanation of the recommendation, to help guide the formation of a consensus. Please see WP:DEM if you would like to clarify why we make decisions by consensus, and not voting. Mandalini (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable is that Mandalini (talk · contribs) on his/her 5th day on Wikipedia is both voting here and making dubious changes in the Stanford University page (which I have since corrected) in order to bump up indirectly the notability of the page. See Talk:Priyadarshini Raje Scindia. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond absurd. Firstly, the length of time I have been editing on Wikipedia has no bearing on the quality or relevance of my edits. If you would like to make some sort of allegation, please do so, and it can be addressed, otherwise, refrain from personal attacks. In the course of editing the Stanford article (most of which was focused on including US politicians and tech executives), I mentioned someone who is related to the subject of this AfD nomination, which has no impact, direct or indirect, on the notability of Priyadarshini Scindia - unless you happen to think that Jyotiraditya Scindia himself is not notable. Mandalini (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right after making a patently false edit to the this woman's article, which describes her as a Stanford Alunma, you go to the Stanford University page, alumni section, make some perfunctory other edits to give you street creds, and then add this woman's husband's name there, with a bogus title, and a promotion to a Minister (from a Minister of State, or Junior Minister), and you are preaching to me about WP:DEM on your 6th day on Wikipedia. That is beyond absurd. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Having read through the sources, I added that she attended continuing studies courses at Stanford, which is factually true and sourced to boot. It's a matter of debate whether or not that qualifies her as a Stanford alumna, but I don't particularly care whether or not that appears in the infobox. In the course of editing the Stanford page, during which I added Steve Ballmer, Reid Hoffman, Peter Thiel, Andreas Halvorsen, Richard Rainwater, Sid Bass, Penny Pritzker, Nadir Godrej, Lorenzo Zambrano, Carlos Brito, Marissa Mayer, Jeffrey Skoll, James Coulter, Ruth Porat, and a horde of others, I also added in Jyotiraditya Scindia, because I had just learnt that he was a Stanford alumnus and thought it was relevant; certainly, I had no ill-intent. Moreover, you seem to think that an editor's tenure on Wikipedia influences their ability to interpret and apply policy - which is complete nonsense. Policy is quite clear that we form consensus, instead of voting. The vitriolic tone of your edits are unbecoming and bordering on a personal attack; please calm down. (And if you think I would go so far as to dig up the private equity fund Crestview Partners to "get street cred", you're sadly wrong. Mandalini (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flower that's WP:AGF which Sitush taught above. You cannot humiliate a person for voting. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page needs to be deleted in a hurry. As for the "royal extraction," mentioned above, the woman's father Sangramsinh Gaekwad is the eight child and third son of the last ruler of Baroda state, Pratap Singh Gaekwad, whose rule ended in 1947 and whose titular privileges were removed by the Government of India in 1951. Her mother is the fourth daughter of Arjun Shamseh Jung Bahadur Rana the son of the last hereditary prime minister of Nepal who in turn was divested of his job in 1948. My own family, before we left Africa 60,000 years ago, were rulers of the coffee growing districts of Ethiopia. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've discovered dirt on her family history, which might make her notable after all. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Scratched by Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, just so you know, I have removed the "dirt" which you gleefully added to the article. Although it is sourced, it is about her ancestors and has nothing to do with her. Your anti-Royal POV is affecting your editing here, and I suggest you take a step back. --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know too, the "dirt" is not the material I have added. That is well known. I already mentioned it below in my reply to DGG. The "dirt," granted not the best word, is material I have just discovered on her more recent family history. It might not be worthy of inclusion in the article, but for now, I want to develop the article some more to see where it leads. We can always AfD is again. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, we can include the apes and coffee connection in your biography when we write one. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to her husband, Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia, who is notable since he is a member of Parliament. This is the usual Wikipedia way of handling people whose "notability" consists mostly of connections to notable people rather than their own achievements. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm happy to support that too. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Merging wouldn't be a terrible solution so long as the article contained information about her. I'm wary of attempts to purge information from Wikipedia just because it seems trivial - there are readers who will come here looking for biographical information about their favorite celebrity. Mandalini (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her work is totally different from her husband. Jyotiraditya is mostly into politics but her work includes different fields and also its a long list. Merging will ruin the whole biography of Priyadarshini. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's kind of the point. If she is not notable we shouldn't have her "whole biography" here. Merging will leave a redirect pointing to her husband's article, where there can be a paragraph or two about her. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with merging as a single paragraph in the personal life section of the article about her husband but she is not worthy of more than that. I'm not trawling back through the very convoluted history but seem to recall that was the way this person was presented in the past. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her history and her contributions towards the society mentioned in the article doesn't allow this page to be redirected. Shobhit Gosain ^(Sup) 16:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shobhit, you have admitted to being the owner of one of the gossip/celeb magazines whose content you have tried to insert among your many edits to this article. I'm not even sure that you are free of a conflict of interest on this matter, let alone neutral. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about the voting not about me. If you really wanna talk then please tell me how is my new signature? Shobhit Gosain ^(Sup) 17:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as the compromise solution. Contrary to what was asserted above, being less -than-notable for several different aspects of one's life, does not add up to notability for the person. People have to be notable for something. It's possible to be notable as a society figure or the wife of a politician, but the bar for this as far as WP is concerned is and should be very high. If people come here to look for the information, it will be in her husband's article. However, I find it perfectly reasonable that somebody interested in a particular subject could learn enough in a few days to contribute here usefully. Not everything here is all that complicated. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG It is true that not everything is that complicated, but not everyone has worked on India-related pages as Sitush and I have; not everyone has seen the prolific sprouting everywhere of socks. Mandalini (talk · contribs), by his or her own admission has multiple accounts. So, they are not really new. Why are they going on in endless circles about WP:DEM etc, they could have simply said, I am not a new user, just someone who has opened yet another account.

Again, (and not addressed to you DGG) there is no royalty in India, there is no royal family in India, no scion of royal families, no royal family in Nepal. The ancestors of this woman in any case were not royalty, but a corrupt oligarchy of prime ministers of Nepal, whose unparalleled corruption is the stuff of history books and human rights watch reports. What are we trying to do? Turn Wikipedia into a Who's Who for anyone who has been reported by the Indian press, which anyone in the Indian elite of many millions? If anyone disputes my characterizations, they are welcome to ask the Wikipedia powers-that-be for an expert opinion. I have nothing against you DGG; I know you are offering a well thought through opinion. It's the never ending parade of mischief makers on India-related pages I worry about. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is really beginning to feel like outright harassment. I mentioned WP:DEM because you were discussing voting, which is not something we do - we seek consensus. I have been quite clear that I have more than one account for the legitimate reason of privacy, and that I do not edit the same topics/articles with more than one account, which is perfectly permissible. My reasons for not mentioning it in this AfD itself are because I wanted to challenge your absurd suggestion that being a new user somehow means that one is not capable of citing policy, etc. - which is simply not true - and because it has absolutely no bearing on anything. I have no idea if you think I'm a sockpuppet (do you think I'm secretly contributing to this AfD as another user?), but I've done nothing wrong. Unless you have some compelling evidence that I am engaged in misconduct, back off. Mandalini (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be strictly violating Wikipedia policy, but are you also staying away in your other incarnations from editing other princely state-related articles? If you are promoting a pro-monarchic POV on those other articles, then your participation in this AfD is problematic. Can you confirm that in your other Wiki-avatars you've never edited princely state? Can you confirm that in your other Wiki-avatars you have never edited other pages in Category:Princely states of India or pages of descendants of rulers of these states? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, this is getting out of hand and is irrelevant to this discussion anyhow. Fowler, you are out of line. If you have accusations to make against another user, make them in the appropriate forum with supporting evidence; otherwise don't make them at all. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any dispute any more with Mandalkini (talk · contribs). My apologies to him/her. The lady is notable after all, or at least her family history is. I'm recommending keep, and with that I believe this AfD is dead in the water. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, please see my comment above, explaining why I have deleted your recent additions of "dirt" to the article. You were bold; I reverted; we can hash it out on the talk page if you want, per BRD. --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The evidence usually does turn up in India-related stuff when regulars in that area get a sniff of something. It is one of the reasons why ARBIPA exits. And it is already self-evident that this particular person has been using multiple accounts. They claim that this has been done legitimately and they may be correct but AGF is not a suicide pact and it is often advisable to be aware of this when it comes to this particular sphere of Wikipedia. Alas, a lot of bad faith predecessors make it more and more difficult for any good faith ones to find their way. Especially when they admit to attempts at "disguising" (poor choice of word, but it is late here) past activity. Time will tell whether there is anything here. - Sitush (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is self-evident that I have more than one account because I have been quite open about it. There is zero evidence that I have done anything wrong. You aren't even making any specific allegations about what I'm doing, but wandering over to articles I've created and have been developing and suggesting that they should be merged while suggesting in multiple places that there is something "wrong" or "off" about me - all without any evidence/suggest of wrongdoing - feels like wikihounding. The tone of this last message persists in indicating that it's 50/50 that I'm up to no good. You claim AGF is not a suicide pact? That's awfully strong wording. What exactly have I done to imply that assuming good faith would be suicide? Yep, that's right - nothing. I'll say it one more time - until you have evidence that I am up to no good - even a smidgen - back off. Mandalini (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case anyone wants to know what Fowler and I are talking about: they made this addition to the article. I reverted it with the edit summary Undid addition of material which, although sourced, has nothing to do with this subject; based on comments at AfD it is being added for POV reasons. They then re-added it and more, with the edit summary I'm afraid I wasn't BOLD, you were. We can now discuss the article on the Talk Page as long as you want. The talk page discussion is here: Talk:Priyadarshini Raje Scindia#The Bold Undo on Article Page. In my opinion Fowler is arguing "keep" only so that they can use the article as a coatrack for their anti-Royal POV. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting your time arguing with the wrong guy. I am the premier contributor to Company rule in India, British Raj, India, and Presidencies and provinces of British India, and princely state (see here). It was the British who created the Indian princely states as a form of indirect rule, usually in barren parts of India they didn't want to govern, and India that abolished them. I've added most of the pictures in these articles. One of them is the oldest country FA on Wikipedia. I know a thing or two about Indian history, both princely and non-princely. Indeed Sitush and I are the two leading contributors to this lady's husband's page. See: here. What can we gain by adding POV in a trifling article if we didn't in the big ones? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS Maybe I'm being a little brusque here, but it is only because I've wasted more time on this stuff on Wikipedia than anyone would care to know. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, MelanieN, you are right. I've reverted all my edits on the page. I'm also withdrawing my keep/delete recommendation. My last post here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John S Harrison[edit]

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

Contested PROD; this article is about a minor player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- At the time he played, his clubs were in the Scottish Football League, the senior national league. In a period when much professional sport was not fulltime, I think he meets the criterion for keeping. If he were operating today, he would be fully professional. Nevertheless, the artiucle needs work. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote is not based on policy in the slightest, and playing in the lower divisions of the Scottish league now does not even confer notability. Please review WP:FPL - 2 of the 4 Scottish leagues are not fully-professional, and the professional nature of a third is under question at WT:FPL. Giant Snowman 15:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. Fenix down (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 13:31, 24 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, L Faraone 23:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced. – Michael (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the question of whether or not playing for those teams at that time satisfied notability requirements would seem to be relatively moot, as I can't find any sources to prove that he played for them, or even existed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to McGill University#Student organizations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bull & Bear[edit]

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

Speedy declined. I can find zero reliable sources indicating notability for this Management Undergraduate Society of McGill University student publication. Delete and merge to McGill_University#Student_organizations, where the publication is already mentioned. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the speedy because, unless other sources are found, I felt the article could be replaced with a redirect. However, if zero reliable source coverage (including primary and trivial coverage) really does not exist, what's it doing in the McGill University article? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have been clearer: no independent secondary WP:RS can be found about this student publication. There are primary sources: it does exist and I don't have a problem personally with it being mentioned under student organizations, in some form. I should also mention that it doesn't appear to meet the essay WP:NMAGAZINE, either. And a Worldcat search for Bull & Bear seems to turn up an older publication, published in Toronto during the 1970s, indicating this hasn't even been registered with an ISSN number (if I understand correctly). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All that is well and good, but non-notable things can be redirected as well as deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's well and good. I'm in favour of a redirect. Also, I do see one Gnews hit from the McGill Daily directing readers to the Bull & Bear for an opposing viewpoint, here. Not substantial, but independent. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:40, 21 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, L Faraone 23:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete Almost no reliable secondary sources can be found. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Combat boot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger boots[edit]

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

Article fails several core policies: WP:V, WP:OR. The few references that are cited don't very the material that they claim to support. For example, the claim that they were "first true modern combat boots" claim is not found in two sources cited. CSD#G5 was declined despite the fact that the article was created by a blocked user, using a sock-puppet, and that the editor in question has a history of creating dubious articles at times. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is largely a copy combat boot (also of low quality and frequented by the same sock-puppeteer, but at least the crap is all in one place). The title/terminology of this fork is questionable because I've not seen English sources call the M43 boots "ranger boots", although if the unsourced French Wikipeda article fr:Rangers (chaussure) is to be believed that's the argot they use in French for their copies. Looking at that article, it seems they now apply the term to any combat boots, even those from before WWII, although the terminology is probably post-WWII. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same sock-puppeteer also created desert combat boot (by forking Chukka boots) although in that case another admin speedily deleted the fork as G5. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The unofficial US term seems to be "double buckle boots". If someone wants to rework the article by looking for sources for that, be my guest. I'm having my hands full cleaning up the firearms articles this sock farm created. I'll leave the boots to someone else. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just "buckle boots" is also used to refer to these. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single, sourced paragraph can be merged into somewhere else. This never should have been created as its own article. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with comments - Have had a quick look around. Looking past the (unsurprising) quantity of hits for "RANGER'S BOOTS" (that annoyingly come up even when searching for the phrase "ranger boots" in quotes), it is clear that there are several styles of boot that go by this name. One book states in passing that in the 19th century these were farmer's boots. There's an interesting and detailed description of another version (1920s/30s?) here, which I don't think is a RS as it's someone's memoirs. I see a few hits where the boots worn by skinheads are explicitly called 'Ranger boots', including in The Subcultures Reader, which says in Google preview: "head completely shaved, 20-hole Ranger boots - it's got to be the hardest image possible" (better snippet views for presumably the same quote here. They also appear to be part of safety gear, for firefighters as per this, for general safety and health; and part of the Lebanon army uniform. A detailed 1979 description of YET another style of boot (for hiking) called a Ranger boot, an ad so probably not reliable, but it does explicitly call them Ranger boots. And another for yet another style with felt bottoms, and reference to a "standard style" of Ranger boots. The problem now is that this is obviously a term people will search for - but there is not an obvious single redirect target. I am actually leaning keep, even if the actual article simply becomes an extended disambiguation page to keep track of the different styles of ranger boots with brief explanations, sourcing, etc, and links to the main articles for those other boots. I didn't see any mention of "double buckle boots" in my results trawl, so that's YET another style to add to the list. Mabalu (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a bazillion unrelated designs that were called "ranger boots" at one point or another. This article isn't even about that topic. Show me a source discussing the evolution of the "ranger boot" concept or something like that, or better, use it to actually write a different encyclopedia article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect -- This focuses on a variety of boot used by one army and seeks to argue that others were like it. It would be much better to have it all dealt with in one article, probably combat boot. It would be legitimate to have a tree of articles, with a series of "main" articles for different types of boot, but this is not the way to go about producing that. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is no clear single redirect target. Ranger boots clearly and demonstrably describe several very different styles of footwear. It's a legitimate search term, but if it is redirected - where should it redirect to, given that several styles have equally strong claims to the name? The problem is that the article is a coathook for a single interpretation, but that is solved by a rewrite and repurposing of the page so that it covers the term and briefly summarises the different styles of boot described as ranger boot with dates and sources, and links to the appropriate articles for each style - which sounds reasonable to me, and actually, I think I could write one up pretty quickly based on the above sources I found. Yes, I know this is only a few steps up from a dictionary definition, but at the same time, it IS a common term which seems pretty widely used, and is something people would look up to see if there was an article on it. Mabalu (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no clear single redirect target". That's why it has to be deleted, or made a WP:DAB at best, although we don't usually do that for terminology in a foreign language. In this case only the French call combat boots "ranger boots" (in fact they call them just "rangers", so the correct title, as per the French wiki, would be rangers (boots)). There are plenty of common English phrases that don't have articles or redirects per WP:NOTDICT. "Everything that was called a ranger boot in one language on Earth" is not passing WP:N or WP:LISTN from what I see. In order to make a DAB, it would have to disambiguate between notable things. Your examples fail WP:PRODUCT by a country mile. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:15, 22 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, L Faraone 23:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a dictionary, there's little discussion of this as a separate term in reliable sources (as opposed to websites selling boots), and anything unique here could be re-added to the Combat boot article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Combat boot (and possible merge of anything worth keeping) seems pretty obvious to me... Ansh6 6 6 02:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'd also be ok with a redirect to combat boot. Article as it exists fails on a number of levels and creates a distinction that really shouldn't exist. Intothat darkness 14:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoda Alani[edit]

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

Non-notable, per complete lack of sourcing on google news. sole non-user-generated and non-press-release source listed is her marriage announcement in the NYT, which I don't think qualifies as RS. Article apparently created by subject (an SPA), who keeps blanking the page. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GS h-index of 21 (although in a highly cited field) plus named chair passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- named chair at BU certainly qualifies. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. I have worked on the article to expand it, add references, wikify it, and make her notability clear. (BTW I found multiple sources at Google News; don't know how nominator missed it.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think I searched as extensively on this article when i saw both how PR-like it was, and that the page creator and probable subject had blanked the page multiple times. mea culpa. Thanks for your improvements, too. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have changed your mind on deletion, you may wish to withdraw the nomination so it can be closed early. (It's not complicated; all that would be needed would be to state here that you withdraw it, less ambiguously than your comment above.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Macross Frontier terminology[edit]

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

This is an extremely large list of in-universe details relying almost entirely on primary sources. The amount of depth is unnecessary, as plot summaries and episode lists should be able to convey the necessary details without 80kb of supporting info. Wikia is a home for such specific details, and there should be little reason to have to merge anything from it. TTN (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obliterate into a googol quark-sized pieces - I've said this a number of times before. Terminology sections/articles are almost never encyclopedic. Why? For one thing, such terms are rarely, if ever, covered in reliable sources. While articles on in-universe elements can and do exist (see Jutsu (Naruto) for an excellent example), that's because the fictional elements in question have real-world, significant coverage about the elements themselves. Another problem is that such articles are always full of in-universe information and original research. I'm all for improving even the worst articles as long as they can be salvaged, but terms used in an anime are not inherently notable. At most, they can be mentioned in a Plot or Setting section, but detailed information belongs in Wikia, not Wikipedia. Finally, giving undue weight on in-universe information violates MOS:FICTION. Even if it were allowed, the article would still violate Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as a terminology article is essentially a dictionary. There is WP:GLOSSARIES, but it's only a proposal and hasn't been approved yet. If there's a Macross Frontier Wiki somewhere, most likely the information here should already be there. And this is coming from an anime fan from the country where Megumi Nakajima's mother is from. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Given CSC and and LIST which allows for glossaries, this page aides in comprehension of the subject and whatever issues should be fixed. There is no reason to remove content off Wikipedia simply because the individual terms need to meet N as Jutsu (Naruto) must and does. This page contains a lot of in-universe information because it has to, the context can only come from its materials and secondary publications which refer to those terms. Deletion is also not clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So where are the sources about "the grouping or set in general" ? You talk about "secondary publications which refer to those terms". I don't see them. What about WP:NOTPLOT ? Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exclusively sourced to first party sources, so doesn't not demonstrate notability even for "the set or the group" per WP:LISTN. Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Jreferee (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dino's[edit]

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

A six-restaurant chain with no references that I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pretty much every restaurant gets local reviews and passing mentions. That's not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are not "passing mentions". Franchise Times is not "local" to MSP. Wikipedia is not paper, we need to stop pretending that we have a size limit and, therefore, have to keep ratcheting up what defines "notability" until every article needs 18 ten-A4-page sources from 19 different geographical regions, each in quadruplicate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 26 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!*} 01:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Some of the articles do coverage the business and its history in some detail. Seems to be enough to establish notability. The coverage is in substantial regional papers. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see it in any of the links supplied by Bushranger. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of sources to establish existence. None that I can find to establish notability.--Korruski^Talk 12:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources from User:The Bushranger are sufficient, in my opinion, though not overwhelming. The place seems to have hit its prime prior to the internet era, so the sourcing is more challenging.--Kubigula (talk) 03:23, 28 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, L Faraone 23:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, there is prove of their existence. No, there is no proof of notability, not even with the links supplied by Bushranger. The Banner talk 03:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources from Bushranger appear to be routine coverage, not an indication of notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as I've heard of this chain being from New England before this AfD so I believe that there are likely more uncovered source out there to establish notability. Technical 13 (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "I've heard of it" has to be one of the worst reasons to keep an article I've seen. Neutrality^talk 05:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small amount of coverage shows a Routine, run-of-the-mill chain. Neutrality^talk 05:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safari cards[edit]

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

Non-notable collectible cards ~~game~~. If you did a search like me, you'll no doubt find ~~this game~~ it has numerous mentions in Boys' Life magazines (e.g. [11], [12]) and in newspapers (e.g. [13], [14]). But these are all primary sources, and I cannot find any independent sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject.

For these same reasons, I am also nominating the following content fork:

Safari cards by set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG per nom. To clarify something he said, the "sources" he mentions are advertisements. Ansh6 6 6 03:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For 2nd hand cards for collectors. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't make them any more reliable. Ansh6 6 6 18:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To call this a "card game" is not at all accurate; these were simply collectibles, like baseball cards. As with other popular and long-running collectible card series it would be very unusual if they attracted no coverage in third-party literature (catalogs, appraisal guides, etc.). It's highly likely that such sources do exist, though many of them probably predate the Web era. Unfortunately there is no WikiProject for trading cards so it will be difficult to attract the necessary subject matter expertise to this discussion. I've left notifications at a few other WikiProjects which seemed relevant. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These were not really trading cards, but a popular educational reference publication in card form - a fad format of the period (and earlier ones, see Mantegna Tarocchi), that worked best with recipes. Like partworks the business model was "subscribe until you get fed up & don't renew". The nom misunderstands the nature of the topic, which the article doesn't explain very well either. I presume every subscriber got the same sets in the same order, so it was useless for trading, which was not the aim. I don't know how much is published on this area, but as someone who used to work in the sector I think it is encyclopedic. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a game or not, or its level of distribution to subscribers, or its aims as an educational tool, I still don't really understand a compelling reason to keep the article. Psychonaut (talk · contribs) above has said that sources probably exist before the web era, but it's not really clear to me what those would be. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 13:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, sources might include write-ups in catalogues and appraisal guides for the collectors' market. There might also be reviews in the educational literature, such as journals catering to teachers and curriculum developers. Unfortunately I don't think any of these types of literature are particularly well represented in online archives such as Google Books and Google Scholar. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but I am still uneasy about a claim to notability based on statements like "I think this is encyclopedic" and "I'm not sure how much is published on this area,". I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No proof that there is any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've searched a number of commercial databases for older sources and found basically nothing. There is still a place on Wikipedia for these I believe, under an article for Editions Rencontre (the publisher). Though not at the level of detail seen here, maybe a paragraph or so, along with the other card sets they made. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New to wikipedia, but it seems wrong to me to delete a useful article on these collectible and interesting items. I have just looked at the article with a view to adding a complete list of these cards from the late 1970s early 1980s. They were not collectible or tradeable when first issued, because as it says above they were issued to all purchasers in the same order (in pretty much the same way as the children's encyclopaedia that I got at the same time). Evidence for this is available via a youtube clip of a 1981 TV advert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkqgH9ji0oY. They are collectible now, and there is a market for them on ebay, for example view this item: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Trilobite-Prehistoric-Animal-Safari-Card-/360483563092?pt=UK_Collectables_AnimalCollectables_SM&hash=item53ee7ea654. I have used a useful reference site here: http://www.atlaspicturecards.com/safari_cards.html and also identified references on collectors site, for example here: http://www.collectingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=19928. As part of my set I have a magazine advertisement describing the partworks nature of the item. I am not sure how you can evidence this on a web based medium. Apologies if any of the above is in the wrong format. Jbatet1710 10:23, 17 August 2013 (UK GMT+1)
- Thanks for your contribution, Jbatet1710. I think most of the commenters here are aware that there are plenty of advertisements for this card set, and it's not hard to find people discussing them on the web. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which requires all its articles to be reliably sourced. This means going to sources which are independent of the subject (so advertisements from the publisher and their agents don't count) and which have some sort of editorial oversight (thus discounting things like personal websites and message board posts). Are you aware of any coverage of Safari Cards in books, magazines, or other media issued by a major publisher? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:52, 17 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, L Faraone 01:29, 20 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, L Faraone 23:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and no WP:RS offered. Information is not useful if not verified. And as an enyclopedia, we deal in notability and verifiable info from reliable sources. Dlohcierekim 03:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No less a part of our cultural history than anything else in the Trading Cards category.Smb1001 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, no sources have been offered up to suggest it is at all representative of "cultural history," and the relative quality of other articles on trading cards have no bearing on this discussion. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as there is no evidence of notability that I can see here. Some RS added to the page would sway my opinion. Technical 13 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and no reliable, non-primary sources in evidence. StuartDouglas (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NAFOD[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable neologism. A search under Google Scholar only turned up Gordon's paper (the main source used in the article), which appears to be primary research. In the article, Gordon states that there are almost no references to the term. The other sources currently used are unreliable (Everything2 and the Rice database reference), and a single passing mention in a Powerpoint slide that is missing context. A search under Google didn't turn up anything extra, although there were a few press releases from Gordon and other promotional work mentioning the term and his paper. Google Books gives two hits, neither of which seems substantive. It is possible that Gordon's paper will end up having an impact, but at this stage the acronym appears to be non-notable. Bilby (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete topic currently fails WP:GNG. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:49, 18 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!*} 06:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the PowerPoint presentation from the USN is missing context. I included it as an example of the US Navy's recognition of the term, and Capt Wear's use of it makes clear that the term is known to the Navy. If anything his casual use of it suggests it's quite widely known; he didn't feel the need to explain what it meant.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added another reference to show current (although non-medical) use of the term.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article still fails WP:NEO. Please refer to that policy. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty with the PowerPoint is that it only includes a passing mention that doesn't make the connection to the article as written. The article is currently predominately about Gordon's theory of a personality disorder, which relies entirely on primary sources. Gordon appears to be actively promoting his concept, but it lacks any coverage in secondary sources, and the single, passing reference in the PowerPoint doesn't seem to have anything to do with Gordon's discussion - however it is hard to tell, as it is very much a brief aside. The couple of sources independent of Gordon make only a passing reference to the term, and Gordon himself notes that it is almost never used. - Bilby (talk) 03:26, 26 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, L Faraone 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a guess. "it appears," "not in any official publications," "two anecdotes ... recounted," "reportedly," "not currently recoginised," the US Navy's beliefs, without a source, of course, a psychiatrist's "beliefs," also, while he is "working on a formal definition." It is sourced to a single primary research article, a blog?, and a powerpoint. Insufficient. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The result was redirect to List of Autobots#Female Autobots. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glyph (Transformers)[edit]

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

This character doesn't establish notability, and it is unlikely any sources exist for it. TTN (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots#Female Autobots (although it could also go to List of female Transformers#Transformers: Universe). Minor character without independent notability. (There seems some question about whether there are 2 separate characters with this name, or one is a variant of the other. If the two are separate, they shouldn't be treated in the same article. But it sounds like the producers didn't really care whether they were the same, so why should we? And the question of whether they're the same isn't discussed in reliable sources. If we redirect to the former heading, that avoids worrying over whether we're purely talking about the character from T:U.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots#Female Autobots. I agree with Cola. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots#Female Autobots, where the character is already listed. The character not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to support a separate article. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Does need more sources, many of which are conveniently provided here by the nominator. This article was brought here primarily to dispute accuracy. A better method for handing this can be found at Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anarkali[edit]

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

No reliable sources cited(Movies casting and rating are cited as references from IMDb(Internet movie database), to the article related to a historical figure, which have been an object of discussion among Historians since origin.(Anarkali, first mentioned by William Finch, a British tourist and trader, in his writings.) It is even suspicious whether she even existed or not, as not enough historical sources are available. Source1 Source2 Source3 Source4 [www.urdustudies.com/pdf/22/08DesoulieresAnarkali.pdf‎ Source5]. The article fails to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. The article relies on the references, are Bollywood movies, what already have been subjected to debate on account of accuracy of this particular historic event, and have been declared a total fictional plot.(By Satish Chandra, author of the Akbar's biography in NCERT(National Council of Educational Research and Training) class XI history text book, and former chairman of UGC(University Grant Commission).) Citation needed Anup Mehra ^✈ 21:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Whether Anarkali was real or not is irrelevant. There have been many films, plays,[15] etc. about her. The nominator has even provided multiple sources attesting to her notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. This hard-to-read article needs fixing, not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 12:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep-- But need to find some strong reference. There must be some scholar material.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 05:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this comment from top of the page to bottom. Also striking of the bolded vote as nominator's delete vote is counted as default for being the nominator. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is not notability. My concern is, The article talks about a disputed historical figure nevertheless she existed or not, source(s) supported by movies declared fictional stories by various notable historians. It is same alike if someone writes an article claiming existence of 'Harry Potter', 'Spiderman', 'Superman' or 'Batman', citing references based on comics, movies and works of other people inspired by these characters. The article must be deleted, as an attempt to manipulate history. History is being manipulated since ages, by various movie directors, play writers and tons of other illiterate historians. I do not expect wikipedia to act same. There must be reference(s) for everything one's writing about. Some people are arguing to keep it, because Anarali is a notable character portrayed in various plays and movies. Then it could be re-written from that perspective. Not as a Historical character Akbar ordered his nobels to entomb a lady he was in marriage with, because the mother(mother of Daniyal, step mother of Salim) had an affair with her son, Salim. I ask for reference. If there's not any and even it is true, i protest each and every word written about it. (Using mobile phone, not sure where is my comment about to land, and yeah first time mobile wiki user.) Anup Mehra ^✈ 09:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment finished here. Please write your comment below. No extra weightage is given to comments on top. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dharmadhyaksha Hmm.. Did you ever used Wiki onto Mobile phone? If didn't. Give it a try. It doesn't give you any option to place your comment, to top or middle or bottom or anywhere. It just places your comment onto top. Might be, Wiki Mobile Beta error it is. But it does happen auto not by intention. I can see people here are imposing/supporing personal opinion rather than facts based on evidence. Anup Mehra ^✈ 13:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... i am glad that you now found how to write at the bottom. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed by your understanding and sense of humour. Anup Mehra ^✈ 13:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because some subject qualifies WP:NOTE, it provides her exemption from WP:REF? It could be re-written when reliable references/sources, if exists, are made available. I seek some logical answer. People seems to be here only looking for just a chance stalking one-another rather than making contribution to a constructive debate. I suggest to keep discussion open to provide good people, time enough backing article from deletion to find reliable resource(s), failing to find source(s) should occur into deletion. Or they could just blank and re-write the article from fictional perspective. Anup Mehra ^✈ 13:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're not going to delete the articles about Robin Hood or William Wallace just because fanciful movies have been made about them. See Religious culture and folklore in the Urdu historical drama Anarkali for an extensive account of the topic. I've also worked her into articles about Lahore where there's a district associated with her tomb. And I used to eat at a restaurant in Hammersmith of this name. It's still there and it's named after her. When people thousands of miles and hundreds of years away remember you, then that's lasting notability. Warden (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the tomb in Lahore, her tomb would be an act of manipulate history. Can you prove it? That it is her tomb? If not, then please don't spread rumor. One has no reference(s) to support a particular claim, then he can make/cite movies to prove it. Most likely to be WP:SPS Anup Mehra ^✈ 17:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation) @Anupmehra:, there seems to be some confusion here. If you think the subjection is a fictional character and can provide RS for it, we can go ahead and mention in the article. This is not a reason to bring this article to AFD. --Tito☸Dutta 19:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah! My primary concern is, i see it as an attempt to manipulate history. As in the past there has been considerable discussion among historian onto this, and no outcome ever came, has been universally accepted due to lack of evidence. Neither Akbarnama nor Tuzuk e jahangiri or other historical documents of that time, mention falling in love of Nadira Begum aka Anarkali to her step son Salim(Jahangir) and entombing of Anarkali ordered by Akbar. And the tomb in Lahore, one view that the mausoleum was erected for one of Salim’s wives named Sahab-e-Jamal not for her step mother Nadira Begum, who died in Lahore. It is only mentioned by one British tourist and trader(Tourist and trader not a historian) came to India around 19th century in his book, which is not considered to be a reliable source as he primary depends upon local sayings, didn't investigate the particular claim. People often sees Wikipedia as a reliable source of knowledge as written texts are supported with reference(s). For me, the writing seems to be biased in favor of a British tourist and trader neglecting very recognized and renowned present day historians. It'd be better if it could be written to the extent the available sources allow or presenting all views with the help of their respective references. And, if one cites movie(s) as reference(s) then the texts of the article should be only about that particular movie(s)(In present case). The historical disputed love story has been center of attraction for years, and has been commercialized by various play writers and movie directors. People generally believes what they have been told irrespective of the actual factual accuracy. I wish if Wikipedia doesn't do the same. Hope it clarifies my stand. Anup Mehra ^✈ 21:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation) @Anupmehra: You could use templates ((Fiction)), ((Disputed)) etc. The purpose of ((Fiction)), which I can see is already added in the article, is to inform readers: The article fails to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. That is also not a reason to bring this article to AFD. --Tito☸Dutta 17:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, The template you're mentioning above was added by me, in fact. Again, I'd like to clear why did I drag this article under AfD. 1) The texts of the article deals with a historical disputed character with zero reference. 2) It is the lack of evidence that historians haven't reach any consensus on Anarkali, till this date. 3) The story which makes Anarkali popular, that She was in love with her step son and it is this incident that triggered Akbar, father of Salim and husband of Anarkali, to order his nobels to entomb Anarkali. And, there is a tomb erected in Lahore in reminiscence of Anarkali by Salim, some even argue, by Akbar not Salim, if deleted from article as unsourced claim, then nothing would be left notable. 4) The subject of the article doesn't actually have RS available. So saying tag the article with { {refimprove)) doesn't gonna make a change. 5)And, the sources listed under references section, are of movies and plays and they already have their own respective article. Like, Mughal e Azam, Anarkali (1953 film), Anarkali (1955 film), Anarkali (1966 film), Shabash Anarkali, Anarkali Bazaar, and tons of other article having texts related Anarkali. Repeating, Just because some subject qualifies Wikipedia general notability guideline, does it provides her exemption from WP:REF & WP:RELY? I'm confused, actually now this moment. I appeal/invite/request all people in favor to keep this article on Wikipeda to find some reliable source(s) and update references section. Or the article could be recreated if some sources found, some later stage. Anup Mehra ^✈ 17:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation) @Anupmehra:, yes, your those points are well-read. But, the point is, even if you prove that Anarkali never existed, yet, the article will be kept as a fictional character. Your point 4 above is a self-contradictory point, You yourself have shown that there are coverages on the subject (does not matter whether she existed or not. All you can do is to show the article does not pass WP:GNG, which is a valid reason to bring an article to AFD. --Tito☸Dutta 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is unavailability of reliable sources related to the Anarkali story, partially stated in point 3(Mind reading again?). And Anarkali is notable due to movies, plays, markets and some other stuffs related to the Anarkali story, and they have their own particular article(s). So what is the need of an unsourced article? Anup Mehra ^✈ 19:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsourced", is also not a reason to delete the article. BTW, why don't you add the references which you have quoted here in the article (at least in that portion which? Even if I consider for sometime that the character is notable only because of plays, stories, films, we write articles on notable film/play characters too. So, once again the question is, does the article pass WP:GNG? --Tito☸Dutta 19:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Anarkali is real as historians find her mention in Akbarnama written by Abul Fazal, a renowned historian of that era. 2) The story of Anarkali is disputed. The story finds its mention no where, neither in Akbarnama nor into Jahangirnama(Tuzuk e Jahangiri), In fact, 'Anarkali' doesn't match to any word of Tuzuk-e-jahangiri. 3) And, Anarkali is non-notable. It is only this disputed story. When someone google/bing/yahoo/blah the key word 'Anarkali', it is only her story and related stuffs(such as Anarkali restaurant, Anarkali market) to Anarkali, published on various blogs and some news channel debating what did actually happened that time. Perhaps I should apologize that I didn't knew we can write unsourced article(s). I would be interested in reading the related wiki project that says so. And to the point about WP:GNG, The historical figure Anarkali(Zarida Begum), one of the wife of 37 wives of Akbar is not notable.(Actually only his two wives, Ruquiya Beugm(his cousin) and Mariyam uz Zamani(Harka bai) is notable). The fictional character portrayed in various films and plays, is notable. Anup Mehra ^✈ 20:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability criteria. The character may be historical or fictional, we do not know. But that is not a reason for deleting the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reasons for deletion, Please read no.6 & no.7. Thanks. Anup Mehra ^✈ 22:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Whether she was real or not is irrelevant, if she is a significant figure in literature or legend. William Finch (merchant) was a real person, though the article on him needs improvement. He was not a mere tourist as this article implies, but had a diplomatic role. I would be surprised if what he wrote was not in print somewhere. We may have a problem over the fictionalisation of real events, where the literary (or film) story departs from historical fact. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Fitrakis[edit]

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

Non-notable "journalist" BLP, no sources about the man available, article heavily sourced to IMDb. PROD declined with the claim that sources are available, but none added to article or cited. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a lot of work with sourcing and possible copyvio[16], but a Google search shows 1000s of hits, he seems to have done many things (author, political candidates, speaker, advocate, film, radio, professor, publisher, editor). Some initial sourcing [17][18][19][20][21]. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- His books are published by vanity presses. Two of your sources are self-published/blog sources unreliable for our purposes. As for his radio show, simply having a radio show on a 100 watt public isn't evidence of notability, right? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spend some time researching and reading through 20 or 40 pages of google hits. You will learn that he's notable not simply as an author, but as a voting rights advocate who rose to prominence during the 2004 United States election voting controversies. His activities are wide and varied and can't be pinned down to a single thing (book author, journalist, professor, editor, speaker, political candidate, radio show host) - he is all those things (and more) and and has to be seen in context. He is clearly widely known on Google in tons of sources within a circle mainly of Democratic reform activists, he is well known by his peers, which is a qualifier for notability. See WP:CREATIVE #1. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any indication that he is *widely* known. His peers have sometimes made mention of him, but I dont think the links you provided show broad notice by his peers. Bonewah (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that "widely known" in conspiracy theory circles is a pretty shallow pool to work out of. We have noteworthy conspiracy theorists in Wikipedia: is he really even sniffing the level of Alex Jones or David Icke or Jerome Corsi? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see now.. the 2004 United States election voting controversies in Ohio are a "conspiracy theory".. please, tell us what you really think of this topic you are putting up for deletion? Is he a total wacko nut case and Bush won fair and square? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just stick to the subject at hand, the notability, or lack thereof, of Bob Fitrakis? WP:SOAPBOX Bonewah (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, so long as the nom assumes good faith and can refrain from unduly attacking Bob Fitrakis. WP:BLP --Green Cardamom (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence that Fitrakis is well known by peers (and otherwise) as an expert on election fraud:

Fitrakis has appeared on National TV such as CNN with Lou Dobbs on election fraud[22], countless radio shows (eg. [23]), liberal TV channel GRITtv [24] and discussed in relation to a story on Democracy Now![25]
Fitrakis works at the national and international levels, briefing John Kerry, the Democratic Party Senate leadership, observing voting in El Salvador, etc.[26](primary for verification)
Board member of the National Election Integrity Coalition.[27]
11 appearances by Fitrakis in documentaries about voting fraud. No other person in the list of leading researchers has as many documentary appearances.[28]
Fitrakis has numerous mentions in sources over his leading involvement with a subpoena of Karl Rove in a voting fraud investigation in Ohio.[29][30]
Fitrakis has numerous mentions in sources over his leading involvement with voting machine tampering in 2012[31][32][33][34][35]
Fitrakis is mentioned often in notable liberal magazines such as The Progressive[36][37][38][39], Guernica[40], Mother Jones[41], Common Dreams NewsCenter[42], Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel[43], Sojourners[44]
Fitrakis mentioned in international press [45][46][47]

The above is far from complete. There are over 40,000 Google hits to keep finding more evidence that he is well known by his liberal activist (and otherwise) peers. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be more impressive if it were worked into the article, rather than dumped into the AfD. Bonewah (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are still not about him, just about the things he has concerned himself with. Just getting on TV in an interview doesn't make you worthy of note, otherwise I'd have an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not as notable as I'd like, but sources do seem to exist. Washington Spectator, Christian Science Monitor, Salon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How are these sources about Fitrakis? Are you arguing that we should move his article in voter machine controversies? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fairly run of the mill journalist and author. Notability (people) requires "the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" merely being a published writer does not qualify. Bonewah (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with NinjaRobotPirate's finds. He gets enough coverage to prove he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article about him. Dream Focus 21:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against men and women[edit]

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

While this is linked from a popular userbox, it really fails as a dab. It seems a pretty unlikely search term, so I propose deleting this page and modifying the userbox to read This user rejects any violence against [[Domestic violence against men|men]] and [[Violence against women|women]]. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Isn't violence against men and women just... violence? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they are tacitly promoting violence against the transgendered, genderqueer and intersexed. Or against animals? How about, "This user rejects any violence against living organisms, with the possible exception of food". Owen× ☎ 14:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails DAB policies by only having 2 entries (WP:D says a hatnote should be used). And what about violence against transsexuals, transgender people, intersex people, hermaphrodites, etc.? While I don't want to start a full-scale trans*-rights protest, I don't think we should preserve this just to satisfy a userbox? Not a useful page. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For seven years, until last month, the userbox was a feminist one, refering only to violence against women. Then, out of an abundance of political correctness, rightly or wrongly, someone amended the userbox to include victims of violence of either gender, thereby making the statement meaningless. I've never seen userspace as an appropriate place to make political statements, but appreciate the fact that working with volunteer editors, one must allow some leeway in self-expression, at least on the editor's userpage. My guess is that most users who exhibit the box on their page haven't even noticed what it recently turned into, and if they did, would rather see the userbox reverted to its original purpose. But then again, I cannot, in good faith, justify the previous, sexist wording. Owen× ☎ 15:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains things somewhat. That userbox edit appears disruptive, but I don't see evidence of disagreement with it. Personally, I think if you say you're against violence against women, that says nothing about your position on violence against men. If I sport a userbox claiming I love hot dogs, it tells you nothing about my opinion on hamburgers, and it would be wrong to assume I dislike them.</tangent> --BDD (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a DAB that disambiguates two loosely-connected topics. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to FreeBSD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JabirOS[edit]

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

Yet another ~~Ubuntu~~ FreeBSD fork. Mentioned on a bunch of blogs and open news streams, but I couldn't find any WP:RS, so fails WP:N. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FreeBSD or relevant list of open source operating systems. I'm actually quite surprised that nothing like this exists under the expected title, given the obsessive list-making that Wikipedia is known for. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per WP:TOOSOON. Not seeing enough in the way of WP:RS to justify an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn by nom. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Rides Again[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable film. The reviews provided are not reliable sources: an AllRovi summary, and an Amazon.com review, which I have since removed. IMDB gives no external critic reviews. Not discussed in detail in any books or news sources, either; they both seem to be schedules. Fails WP:NFILM. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Seriously, Taylor? Delete an article on a 76-year-old, pre-WWII film, with many notables attached, simply because of the current article needs more sources? We can certainly expect difficulties in finding online archives of 76-year-old film reviews, but it is written of in books as part of the formative career of many different actors, and notability is not temporary. Let's look at possibilities and see how information about this film article might be kept to preserve our American cinematic history. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Abro[edit]

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

Clearly a non notable person, as no reliable sources found discussing the subject in depth. Besides it looks like that this is an autobiography. SMS ^Talk 17:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 17:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is certainly a non-notable article-- 39.54.80.80 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Dr Fareed Muhammad Khan[reply]

The result was keep. Merge/redirect discussion can take place elsewhere — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Leaders[edit]

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

Little coverage of the subject, barely meets the notability guidelines, if at all. James ^{(T • C)} • 1:40pm • 02:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in RS, non-notable. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC). Keep. Per the comments and sources below. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James and Theodore. Thanks for the note. I added this article years ago when I did the ref audit on The World Factbook since it seemed to feature prominently on the CIA site. Since then, I haven't touched this article compared to the other. Also as you note, it doesn't seem to have much mainstream mention as the Factbook itself does. I would be more than happy to help merge/redirect this into the World Factbook article if the community thinks its good. - Thanks, Hoshie 04:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis could it be merged into The World Factbook? Is World Leaders part of it? If so it's curious that this isn't mentioned in the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of creating an other publications section to merge this into. There was some mention of World Leaders a while back when I did the ref audit on the World Factbook article, but it seems to have vanished. AFAIK, they are separate publications. - Thanks, Hoshie 06:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect or Keep based on the number of "What links here" - there is evidently a need and demand for this information somewhere somehow on Wikipedia. Sources:
- Martella, Melanie. "Central bank. (Web Picks)." Sensors Magazine Sept. 2002: 96. General OneFile. GALE|A91658768
- JSTOR showing five reviews: by The American Political Science Review[48][49][50], Journal of Peace Research[51], Bulletin of Latin American Research[52] calls it an "exciting source of information". --Green Cardamom (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources posted by Green Cardamom, particularly the dedicated reviews. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note I undid a WP:NAC closure as there isn't any consensus yet for a straight up keep or a merge/redirect and likely needs relisting. No comment on the article. Secret ^account 02:08, 28 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Appears to be a copy of [53], to add to the marginal majority in favour of deletion Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dashgyn Gulmammadov[edit]

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

The article does not seem fit for Wikipedia for the following reasons:

The person whom the article is dedicated to overall does not appear to be very notable.
With the exception of the lead, the article is not sourced at all. However, it makes pretty bold statements with regard to this person's political activity, which may very well be exaggerated, like claiming him to be a 'democracy activist', which a sample check revealed not to be supported by any reliable sources.
The fact that the article has mainly been edited by one user who has not contributed to any other articles on Wikipedia since his/her registration, and also the fact that articles about this person were created en masse in other languages around the same time by the same user, albeit consisting of one or two sentences each, suggest that this may be a case of WP:SELFPROMOTE. Parishan (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many Islamic Turks were expelled from Georgia and resettled in Azerbaijani by the Soviets, including ethnic cleansing. Dashgyn is an Georgian/Azerbaijani Turk who has held many political positions within that community but it's difficult to gauge the importance of these groups without local knowledge. However he was founder and President of the Georgian Azerbaijanis National Assembly from 2002 to 2011, as confirmed here, here, here, and so on; the organization appears to be a significant representative of the Georgian/Azerbaijani Turks. Dashgyn would pass WP:POLITICIAN #1 and/or #2. It's a good catch on the nom's part, but not concerned about WP:COI, if there is specific content that is inappropriate for Wikipedia it should be removed, but the existential question if we should have an article on this person I believe would be keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has no real importance. Just a self-commercialized article. GEORGIANJORJADZE 13:19, 24 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:51, 28 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, L Faraone 23:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic table (wide)[edit]

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

The page is a wrapper for a single periodic table (PT). The layout of that PT is an intermediate between the wide and large one: ((Periodic table (large version))) and the smaller ones: ((compact))/((standard)). Inbetween there it does not add information, it just has a bit of both sides. It does not add any scientific information that is not in the other ones. Given that there are dozens of PT forms already, most for genuine science or layout reasons, this one only adds one without a new reason. I can note that it is too wide for regular screens and almost all incoming links are from the PT navigation box (footer). After deletion, the template likely might go too. -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified creator: [54], project WP:ELEMENTS [55]. -DePiep (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scientifically speaking this is just the same sort of table as the compact one and the one you see in the element infoboxes. IMHO we already have way too many periodic table variant templates. Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This layout is extremely useful for understanding the relation of the lanthanides and actinides to the other Group 6 and 7 elements, and more precisely why they are cut out of standard form of the table. Yes, this table too wide to display without scrolling, but that's kind of the point—it illustrates the motivation for the layout of the compact table. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I had clicked on the wrong link. Comment withdrawn. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, the compact table has the same layout as this AfD'ed table. What does that illustrate?

BTW I understand you mean to say "period 6 and 7 elements" (this is what I meant with the disturbing vertical layout ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though it should probably be moved to subpage or template space. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In article (main) space there are no subpages. For template space: it is already there: the template. Please explain what you propose. -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/move I think this page was created well before templates became a norm. I suggest moving this into tempalte space, and putting it in Alternative periodic tables. Nergaal (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify: keep what, move what-to-what? Of course I want to delete template. And you really do not want to use "before" in wikitime as an argument, do you? This AfD article page is just an excuse for a bad template (in itself deletable). -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Periodic table (wide), just like Periodic table (standard). A discussion about the template can be taken up at TfD. The same should be done for all standalone periodic table pages still existing in mainspace. Ansh6 6 6 04:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. The redirect in Periodic table (standard) was from article space to template space. This cross namespace redirect had no good reason, so I changed it to be within article space.

2. At least the standard PT has a reason for being (it is still in articles). This (wide) variant in itself adds nothing, whether as template or as article. IOW, if its article is not needed, the template may go as well. -DePiep (talk) 15:14, 24 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, postdlf (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Needs to be included, but not in its own article. Star6763 (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this intermediate sized one needed, between the others mentioned in the OP? -DePiep (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is redundant. Technical 13 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to Template There is no reason not to have multiple forms available--but of course it shouldn't be by itself in article space 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It already exists as a template: see Template:Periodic table (wide). Ansh6 6 6 19:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.　Kiruning (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic table (vertical)[edit]

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

Another layout variant of the periodic table, put in a single table page. This time it is by the transposition of the groups/periods. Though nice for vertical screen scrolling, there is no scientific reason to present the PT this way. In other words: a layout play only. It even may be harmful (for understanding the PT) to change the pattern this way. It is a mental disturbance of the regular iconic form. Once the page is gone, the template can go too. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: creator [56], project WP:ELEMENTS [57]. -DePiep (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems potentially useful, so I'm hesitant to delete it. Has the table been published in this orientation anywhere other than Wikipedia? If so it should definitely be kept, and references added. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just interesting: the page was created in September 2001 [58], copied from nupedia, when WP had 2800 articles from 55 users. -DePiep (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's been used before, it's just an easily described variant of the main periodic table and doesn't really need its own article. Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why describe when we can show? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Showing would take too much space and there really isn't any significant difference here except orientation to discuss, perhaps? Double sharp (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move this exists from well before the template space was created. Make this page a template and put it in Alternative periodic tables. Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, that would be the current template ((Periodic table (vertical))) then. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely simply, perhaps. Would the closer of this discussion please deal with the WP:CWW issues in that template as part of the close?—S Marshall T/C 01:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative periodic tables is about PTs with a different structure (e.g., reordering of groups in Janet's, making it circular somehow, etc). But this vertical one is based on the same standard period/group structure, it is just a presentational variant. Being just that, it does not add new information or insights to the topic. -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Periodic table (vertical), just like Periodic table (standard). A discussion about the template can be taken up at TfD. The same should be done for all standalone periodic table pages still existing in mainspace. Ansh6 6 6 04:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Periodic table (standard) was a cross-namespace redirect (into template space) for no good reason. That is not needed, I changed it in R within mainspace.

2. This standard table is undisputed content. The vertical table content, however, is disputed here. If we heave no use in mainspace for it, the page should go. TfD even could be a speedy then. -DePiep (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting to a new article forking off of Periodic table and Dmitri Mendeleev into something like Mendeleev's periodic table, provided enough sources can be found to make a standalone article. (side note, I'm currently wikifying the section Periodic table#Mendeleev's table, adding wikilinks.) Ansh6 6 6 19:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could 'keep/move/redirect'-respondants please state the encyclopedic reason this one should be present? Sure I can draw the PT on a Rubiks Cube, but would the encyclopedia need that one? -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this is supposed to be in template space, let's move it there and take it up at TfD. Ansh6 6 6 03:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's first finish conclude about the article. Depending on the outcome, we can take a look at the template. -DePiep (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep and rename to Mendeleev's vertical periodic table or merge to something. Mendeleev's first published table was vertical. Maybe there isnt a "there is no scientific reason", but there is a historic reason to do it. Christian75 (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your historical source for that? I think it's pretty clear from the image I've included here that Mendevels original is nothing like you have described. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask the same, where is you hisorical source for that? The first version was published in 1869 (not 1871) - you could search the internet for it :-), but here is one link, and the image. Christian75 (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the 1869 version was vertical. But that does not convince me we should have this current (modern, completed) version available, in article or template. If we want to describe Mendeleev's historical PT, we should show that 1869 image, not a modern version. For example, famously the noble gases were not in the earliest one. Then again, there is no page that tries to do that historical description. "Usefull in the future" is not an argument to me. (oh and IRWolfie-, please check your spelling when you write "Mendevel". Sounds awkward ;-) ) -DePiep (talk) 16:05, 31 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, postdlf (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - should be kept but not under its own article. Star6763 (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into where, then? -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a notable variant so it fails standard article requirements like WP:GNG. Now if you think it is WP:USEFUL for some function (personally I don't, but whatever), then it can be userified and then moved into the appropriate namespace, but it certainly doesn't belong in the article namespace, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already in the template namespace, though. I thought the remaining issue for this discussion to decide was whether the article namespace version should be converted into a cross-namespace redirect to the template namespace version, or simply deleted. Personally I'd advocate turning it into a cross-namespace redirect because it makes the WP:CWW issues I mentioned so much less stress to resolve.—S Marshall T/C 13:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So deletion would cause serious trouble to keep its history right (because of earlier moves &tc.). For that reason I would not mind turning it into a redirect to the template, instead of full deletion. Note that that would be just a wikitechnical reason to "keep" the page, not an argument in itself. Next then, if it is not kept, I will put the template itself up for deletion (so this redirect would go too). -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's what I was saying the whole time! Ansh6 6 6 09:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I started this one to get a conclusion on whether it should be in main space or not. No need to shift the content discussion. -DePiep (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. Why wouldn't merging the history work? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging history can be done, but it is a very very complicated process for an admin. That is what user:S Marshall points to (I call that: wikitechical). My suggestion to do that easier redirect is because: within days the template will be gone too (via my projected TfD).

What I propose for this here is: deletion. We could just do the redirect (and do not the heavy history merge -- for now). Then delete the template so all will go, including all difficult histories. I will propose TfD asap when appropriate.

Please note that I myself want this topic thing out of mainspace -- no withholdings. That is why I started this AfD. Once out of mainspace, the template can go or die silently. (I have spend enough time with our periodic tables to push this forward). -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase myself. This article and its template share a history because of earlier moves, forkings and edits. If this AfD conclusion is that this page is to be deleted, its history must be preserved in the template (WP:CWW). That is a tough job because there are overlaps in their histories (edits were not done simply after another).

Now when the page is deleted, I will put the template up for TfD as a logical next step. If that concludes deletion too, the template (and its history) are deleted. That would mean that the difficult history merging was done in vain. To spare that useless work, I can agree on making the article a redirect to the template for the time being (until TfD conclusion).

All this is procedural, not argumental (a redirect in itself is not an argument for keeping). As for arguments, I want to know from this AfD if we want this topic in mainspace at all. Hope I'm clearer now. -DePiep (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article and Keep the useful template. Technical 13 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Now please, please, tell us why. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Toyota Hilux. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gyurza patrol vehicle[edit]

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

Totally unsourced article about an Azerbaijani vehicle claimed to be based on a Toyota Hilux Pickup. The article should either be deleted or, if proper sources show up, merged with Technical (vehicle). Which is what it seems to be. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief description and the photo to Toyota Hilux, worth mentioning there but not worthy of its own article, at least not yet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bushranger. Not quite a technical, as it's an army development of the vehicle, not improvised. Ansh6 6 6 19:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:The Bushranger. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mélange Lavonne[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice secondary source coverage, just needs some minor formatting cleanup. — Cirt (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sources cited in the article, there is a recent interview: http://queermusicheritage.us/outaug13s.html --Larrybob (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article does not appear to have been properly listed at WP:AFD - so I'm relisting it and adding it to today's log. No comment on the merits, but the 5-paragraph lead could probably use some attention. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 28 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, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remington Tufflips[edit]

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

Not notable; unclear whether this is a real person. Google search only brings up results about the character. ... discospinster _talk 13:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even assuming that a person by this name exists (which I doubt—the credit "Remington Tufflips [as himself]" is almost certainly a pseudonym for one of the show's creators or some anonymous person brought in to do this one voice), his only discoverable "role" is as a minor voice actor in a single episode of a cartoon series. For neither the putative person nor the character do there seem to be any reliable secondary sources that would satisfy the GNG. Deor (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a fictional character and definitely not notable as an actor. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per User:Deor's argument outlined above.Finnegas (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ainy Jaffri[edit]

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

Hardly sourced BLP. Based on a search on the Irish Google with western script, she seems to fail WP:GNG but I don't know what is out there in non-western script and languages. Close paraphrasing from [59] The Banner talk 01:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An actress with a starring role on a Pakistani TV series. Additional coverage in Urdu language sources is almost certain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes it needs a lot of work (I'm assuming the creator doesn't have a perfect grasp of English), but she meets criteria #1 in WP:NACTOR, as she voices the protagonist in Burka Avenger, played a protagonist on Meri Behan Maya, and has appeared (or will appear) in more TV shows and a movie. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:40, 21 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, Wifione ^Message 13:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optimum Daily Intake[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable term and is not used by health organizations or regulatory authorities. Aside from the book used as a reference for the article, a Google search doesn't turn up much more than blog hits and other non-notable uses of the term (and these uses may not even be the same definition in some cases). Deli nk (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable. It's mentioned in more than this book. I could care less what Google has on it. - Star6763 (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Notability no proved. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You're not supposed to use that template unless there are suspicious votes. Do you have a case, or are you just going to try to discredit me because its a new account? You claimed it was not notable after 5 references were provided to the article for notability. So now they're listed here also. - Star6763 (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 5 books that provide notability.

Lieberman; Bruning (2007), The Real Vitamins and Minerals Book (4 ed.), Penguin Group ((citation)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
~~Gerson; Walker (2001), The Gerson Therapy: The Proven Nutritional Program for Cancer and Other Illnesses (Reissue ed.), Kensington ((citation)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)~~

Balch (2002), Prescription for Nutritional Healing: The A-to-Z Guide to Supplements (Prescription for Nutritional Healing: A-To-Z Guide to Supplements) (2 ed.), Avery Trade ((citation)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)

Ottoboni, Alice; Ottoboni, Fred (2013), The Modern Nutritional Diseases: and How to Prevent Them, Vincente Books ((citation)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)

Hulea (2008), An Introduction to Vitamins, Minerals and Oxidative Stress: The Role of Micronutrients and Reactive Oxygen Species in Normal and Pathological Processes, Universal Publishers ((citation)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)

Keep - Author of page. Provided references. - Star6763 (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)— Star6763 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - a poorly written, non-encyclopedic article with links to books on quack cancer remedies like the Gerson Therapy - the horror! but these might be surmountable problems if "Optimum Daily Intake" was a recognized standalone term that was established in reliable sources; it isn't. So, delete. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; we already have coverage of the better-known terms around RDA &c; this article is at best covering an inadvertent variation in wording, at worst opening the door to WP:FRINGE content. bobrayner (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RDA/RDI is obsolete for a guide, and ODI was to address that. RDI is still listed on nutritional labels, however its the amount to prevent deficiency. It's not fringe, whether or not that one source was. Star6763 (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term may be used in a few books, but I'm not sure it's being defined the same way in each case. In the absence of any authoritative source that determines ODIs, such as the way that RDAs are, or that ODIs are used in notable ways such as on nutrition labels like RDAs, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Peacock (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RDAs are obsolete. RDIs replaced it, RDI is new newer version of RDA. Both address the minimal amount required for health. Again, Neither address better health. ODI emerged shortly after RDI. The books all refer to the same ODI. Not being on a nutritional label does not make something not notable. Lazy argument, considering what you mentioned has already been covered. Star6763 (talk) 12:35, 4 September 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) 20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auxiliary (magazine)[edit]

Auxiliary (magazine) (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 magazine. Lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have some notable sources. Neptune's Trident (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Which would those be? The self-written description of the magazine, the article from the magazine about a NN author, a brief mention of the magazine, or another even more brief mention of the magazine. If you are referring to the ones in the article, these do not even come close. If you are aware of others that can be used for the article, please add them so the article might have a chance for inclusion. Since you are the author of the article the onus to provide adequate references falls to you. reddogsix (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, for crying out loud, just delete it then. I was just contributing to the Wikipedia project. The deletionists are out in full force. Neptune's Trident (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, needs more and better sources about the magazine, from reliable sources independent of the magazine, to meet the threshold of WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom and Green Cardamon said it all. Fails GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Fails GNG. Reso lute 22:39, 30 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 delete. WP:SNOW and also G5 - created by a block-evading sockpuppet, since blocked. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best Movies Of Tollywood[edit]

Best Movies Of Tollywood (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)

prod remove without explanation, fail WP:GNG - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an encyclopedic list. It is totally unsourced, there is no indication of the criteria used, and it may be personal opinion. If there are well-known authoritative widely-discussed lists of West Bengal cinema (or Telugu cinema, since that can also sometimes be called Tollywood too), analogous to the Sight & Sound polls, that may merit coverage. But unless someone can explain why this is notable, delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extreme POV--appears to be one person's opinion. This is material for someone's blog or Facebook wall, not an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 12:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's apparently someone treating Wikipedia like a blog. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Personal opinion. I think this could've even been a G11 candidate. Thanks, Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 07:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is the article actually aiming to be a list of highest grossing films of Tollywood? In such case the subject is fair enough to stay and only requires renaming. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A highest-grossing film list would be appropriate. However, I don't understand this list. Note that if refers simply to Tollywood, which is a DAB. So which Tollywood is it? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are voting for deletion even without understanding what the topic is. The films listed are Bengali films and that's the Tollywood its referring to. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm voting because the topic is unclear. I thought it was a listing of top grossing films, but there's one at the bottom that grossed significantly less than the others. I'm guessing it has something to do with the rating column to the right. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind deleting the article for it's unclarity, POV title, disambiguity in it and the fact that it's created by a sock which qualifies it for speedy deletion. But none of the regular editors of Bengali cinema have come in here yet and they might be able to salvage it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is a regular editor of Bengali film articles. —SpacemanSpiff 19:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah! Didn't notice that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 02:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation) These articles are always prone to spam. There are many reports most probably in all noticeboards. This is one of those reports. As a primary editor of these articles and Bengali film portal, I can tell you, this article is full of spam and original research.
I am eager to add a ((Hoax)), when you call some of poorest films as best films of a film industry just to promote one two actors and one two production house, it becomes a deliberate attempt to create hoax.
Note, am not voting here at this moment. --Tito☸Dutta 13:43, 29 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) 20:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frame by Frame[edit]

Frame by Frame (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)

Not notable song. Prod contested TEN DAYS after the fact, which is inexcusable. Opposing deprodders' suggestion to merge, as there are other uses of the phrase "frame by frame", including a whole dab page, and this does not appear to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Suggest deletion to move Frame by Frame (disambiguation) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cc'd from the other dd we are both involved in:

"perhaps it went stale, because it was unsupported by the reviewing admins? please note that the passage of time on a prod does not create a "right" to deletion. it means only that no admin has chosen to fulfil your request."

as regards the case at hand, i do not understand why on earth you would opposed merging the info abt the song, into the article about the band? if the band itself is notable nough to merit coverage, then the band's work would seem to be a relevant part of said coverage...

as regards the dab, that's even more reason to keep a listing for Frame by Frame (song). THE WHOLE POINT of dab-pages is to enable readers to find what they are looking for (& to find out what-all shares the same name).

i have no problem with giving the dab precedence (i.e.: putting it up on Frame by Frame), but it's stupid to do that, & then eliminate one of the items for which a dab is needed.

Lx 121 (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable song. No indication it was a single or notable for any other reason in particular. Frame by Frame (disambiguation) should probably be moved there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Notability is not inherited. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Mackensen (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and leave an entry for the song at Frame by Frame (disambiguation) pointing to Discipline (King Crimson album), so that anyone who may be searching for the song is directed appropriately. There is nothing worthwhile to be merged. --Michig (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. King Crimson (and prog rock in general) was never really my thing, but this song was apparently important enough for the band to name their 4-disc complilation after it. Getting focused search results is complicated because the song shares its name with the compilation, but I did find a few things that suggest that the song just might be borderline notable, or at least, worthy of substantive discussion in the album article. AllMusic has a separate article for the song, and calls it "a rapid-fire and densely orchestrated masterpiece " that "became an enthusiast favorite" and appears on multiple live recordings.[60] The song is also discussed in at least one book [61]. GNews results are mostly paywalled but the song is evidently mentioned repeatedly in concert reviews. --14:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment only. Frame by Frame is a great title for a 4-CD resumé of an artist's output? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per instructions suggested by Michig. Fails WP:NSONG. There's also a compilation album [62] by King Crimson with the same title. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:28, 2 September 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 Withdrawn per improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Roberts (singer)[edit]

Dan Roberts (singer) (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)

Deprodded without rationale. Prod reason was "Found no proof of grammy nominations. Other awards are redlinked. Found no reliable sourcing to verify anything more than writing one hit." Sources added are all commercial in nature (MusicVF, CD Baby, Amazon) or are WP:PRIMARY.
As an aside, this was deprodded ELEVEN DAYS after the prod. There should be NO EXCUSE for a prod going that stale. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps it went stale, because it was unsupported by the reviewing admins? please note that the passage of time on a prod does not create a "right" to deletion. it means only that no admin has chosen to fulfil your request.

as regards the five sources, all of which you object to, & some of which i included specifically to confirm the subject's claim music-credits, where exactly do you suggest getting such information from? because if an amazon listing for an album, which MENTIONS THE AWARDS that it has won, or a list of songwriting credits at musicvf is not considered an adequate source for such information, then i'd really like to know what is?

Lx 121 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Garth Brooks - The best source I can muster is this, so while it's verifiable he's worked with Brooks, it's about all he seems to be notable for. Everything else is your standard self-published and fansite fodder. The problem with Amazon is that they're in business to ship product, so the "Editorial reviews" tend to be promotional in nature, and unsuitable to use as a source. Oh, TPH, unless it's an copyvio, blatant spam, egregious violation of WP:BLP or similar (which this isn't), then nobody is required to "jump to it" and delete expired prods the minute the 7 days are up. Chill. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok i understand what you are saying BUT i'm not talking about "reviews", notability, or any other "in-depth" content. ALL i'm talking about is the listing info: album title (& the fact that the album exists), authors/artists (songwriters, performers, editors., etc.). song list, duration, cover art, publisher, date, awards, ISBN-or-equivalent, etc.

this is basic "directory/catalogue-listing" stuff, & a site like amazon NEEDS to get that right; it's part of their job. i'm not saying that they are always going to be "perfect", nobody is perfect; BUT the reliability of their listing info, on that level, HAS GOT to be as good as any other professional resource (& as good at error-correction). otherwise, they couldn't operate their business.

if we are seriously saying that an amazon listing (or equivalent) "is not good enough" as a source for basic information like that (examples given above), then there is something seriously wrong with how we are doing things here. because, i'm sorry, but that's just DUMB.

Lx 121 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found a just-ok book reference, and an RS magazine ref for his awards and life. Other sources are out there, just hard-ish for me to dig up at the moment because my HighBeam Research subscription expired. Also, PROD misapplied, since it's for noncontroversial, unlikely to be contested deletions. Also, "de-prodded without rationale", and all the complaints about the PROD, are not reasons for deletion. In fact, they are arguments to avoid. Thank you. --Lexein (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Need his age, city of birth, etc. The awards are impressive. Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And where do you propose finding those? Pulling them out of your ass? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the fucking fuck, User:TenPoundHammer? --Lexein (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It just needs his age and city of birth" is a stupid thing to say when we can barely scrape together enough to verify that he exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find sources such as this account of the award of Entertainer of the Year by the Academy of Western Artists. It seems quite improper to PROD an artist of this stature. Warden (talk) 22:50, 1 September 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) 20:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most Cited Universities[edit]

Most Cited Universities (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 appears to be original research; at least there is no 3rd party coverage of the project. I think the author misunderstands Wikipedia policies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia policies. I'm doing an research project on my own. I developed an unique software which is able to extract the paper information from the Scopus database. I have already done a research calculating the Scopus Highly Cited Italian Scientists, now I'm calculating the Top Cited Universities based on scopus total cites of its papers. The results are not ready yet since it takes time to produce it, but in the meantime I wanted to start this article, is it ok? Luca boscolo (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry but Wikipedia is not a place for publishing your own research (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability). You must get the work published elsewhere and then write about it here, or preferably allow someone else to write about it. Writing about yourself or your work is frowned upon in general (see WP:COI). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant promotion of ones own project. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:47, 28 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IDrive Inc.[edit]

IDrive Inc. (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 appears to be a classic Morning277 advertisement. If subsequent editors agree, then the incident should also be reported to WP:ANI or WP:AIV. The article has an obtusely large number of "citations", many of which come from classic Morning277 "sources" (Vatalyst, California Business Journal, etc.). The article's subject is a Silicon Valley computer-related business, also a Morning277 signal, and the page creator has a one-line userpage with a list of contributions that looks like a long list of other possible Morning277 creations/ modifications. I have never nominated a Morning277 article for deletion before, which is why I am not nominating it for speedy deletion or a PROD but rather for AfD discussion so that someone can verify my work. KDS4444^Talk 20:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the article's parentage, the subject appears to be notable. The references listed in the article are mostly garbage but there are also significant, full length articles from Mac World, PC Mag and PC World, in addition to TechCrunch (which I find less impressive since I think they often retool press releases and present them as journalism). --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, if it's confirmed to have been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, it will be deleted -- albeit with no prejudice against being recreated by a legitimate user. Morning277 (like any other blocked user) is not allowed to submit articles to Wikipedia, period. DS (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's out of my hands and beyond my knowledge. As commenters here, we can only base our opinion on our own review of the article - not on presumptions of sockpuppetry. --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DS, articles created by sockpuppets of a blocked or banned user are eligible for speedy deletion only if no other user has substantially edited the page. In this case the article has substantial edits from two users other than the creator, so it does not qualify. (Or do you allege that User:MurphySoCal and User:173.77.192.39 are also sockpuppets of User:Morning277? In that case why aren't they listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277?) —Psychonaut (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the indisputably reputable magazines listed in the previous comment, VentureBeat and Lifehacker are established blogs with a reputation for editorial oversight, so may also count as reliable sources. Promotional aspects of the article can be dealt with through mechanisms other than deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if done by spammers, they are getting better at coming up with articles of almost acceptable quality than many normal users. :-) For what its worth, Calabasas, California is not near Silicon Valley, although I suppose the article could be about a "two kids and an app" company which would not be very notable. Supposedly founded in 1995 in Infobox, but no mention of company funding or size in cited prose. Clearly just a product sheet is not acceptable, even if the only superlative is calling it a flagship, which of course it has nothing to do with. .... update: it appears that to me the most notable aspect of this company is its role in some litigation with patent trolls, but that is not mentioned at all in the article. Apparently there are a bunch of shell companies in a certain Texas district that is kind to lawsuits that go around suing people, and network backup is one of those that has been used against this company. See http://news.priorsmart.com/oasis-research-v-adrive-l35R/ for example. Although probably not a conflict of interest in this, it turns out I developed a network backup product back in 1989, long before any of these patents were filed, so might be at least curious about this. W Nowicki (talk) 21:13, 22 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:15, 28 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) 20:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox engineering[edit]

Paradox engineering (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)

Sufficient notability is asserted to pass CSD, but there is insufficient asserted to pass WP:GNG. References rely on primary sources such as the corporation itself or on press releases, sometimes duplicating those in different citations. The article feels highly promotional, and smells like a copyvio, though I have been unable to find it. Fiddle Faddle 11:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure advertorial. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

This article is formally correct and if you think that is "advertorial", you have to look at Oracle page or Philips page, and consider that at the same level...Is explaining not advertising! Sunny2888 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an advertisement masquerading as an article: "...a business footprint spanning the 5 continents through strong business development and sales activities..."; " the company signed strategic agreements with key market players such as NEC, in order to provide world-class Smart Grid solutions to the market..." This would need a complete rewrite and while it may be that a good article could be written about this company, this panegyric is not it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too detailed but not advertising, could pass CSD.Saraa26 (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC) — Saraa26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 3 September 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) 20:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan-India Border[edit]

Bhutan-India Border (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:NPLACE. Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't all international borders come under our standard pillars gazetteer function of documenting all geographical points? It is for that reason we have Category:Borders by country, and quite similar to this particular case Category:Borders of Lesotho. This isn't an OSE argument, but we do have articles for almost every land and maritime border. —SpacemanSpiff 18:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep: The alternative names of this border are a) Indo-Bhutan border b) Bhutan Borders etc. Some mentions may be found here (this link may not work in Internet Explorer). Some more articles may be found in Google search. seeing the mentiones and the news articles, I a'm convinced the border and the surrounding area is important location. (see also WP:INDAFD) Tito☸Dutta 18:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Missing name added on 11:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 19:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I looked at some of the border cats, and if you drill down, you'll see that there aren't actual border articles. Instead, there are articles about points on a border. There would have to be something very special about an article that is just about the border for it to exist as an independent article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason I specifically listed Lesotho, this border is exactly like Lesotho–South Africa border as it is the only method for any trade to happen with Bhutan as well as almost any land entry to the country. There's of course sufficient RS sources out there listing different aspects of this border (listed on this AfD now). —SpacemanSpiff 19:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The border is notable in the context of Bhutan–India relations. The vast majority of Bhutani imports and exports cross this border, thereby lending it local significance. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have just reverted the NAC by King jakob c 2, since it was clear that Bbb23 did not agree with it. And I can see Bbb's point: there's not a lot of strong arguments here for keeping. For the record, here's what Jakob had to say:
I'll assume that Titodutta is right about the presence of sources.
Now, I don't know what pronouncement of TitoDutta's is being invoked here, but it doesn't really matter: NACs can't stand if they're controversial, and let me note also that AfD discussions shouldn't be closed on assumptions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 28 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, KTC (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to relisting: In my last (and only post here) I posted a link of a customized search page. In case you have clicked on that link and browsed the results, most probably you have got multiple articles like this which show the border have been in news multiple times for disruptive activities, border security concerns, foreign relation etc. The first few links of the search page:

Special inspection being conducted at Indo-Bhutan Border Year 2009

State Home Secretary visits the border Year 2012

Once again security of the border being reviewed by Indian gov Year 2013

Additional troops were sent to this border Year 2012

This article mentions Buddha monasteries at the border which took an important role in China-Indian relationship and border conflicts. Year: 2013

Rare birds live in this area and initiatives were taken to save these endangered species.

Should I add more links? In my last reply I posted the "main search page link" which had all these links and more. --Tito☸Dutta 11:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It can be merged with the article Bhutan–India_relations.WJ (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or it can be kept as it is. Thanks for letting us know of this valuable possible option. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LoL @ User:Dharmadhyaksha.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WJ, since I posted those links after your post, I am attracting your attention towards those sources. See if those help to pass GNG. --Tito☸Dutta 19:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, and per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPLACE, and has enough geographic interest independent of Bhutan-India relations to stand on its own. (Aside: Would be good to have a map) Abecedare (talk) 19:27, 3 September 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) 20:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pong Ki Kim[edit]

Pong Ki Kim (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)

Notability grounds - unreferenced. I could not find very much on him at all. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created in 2009 but still has no references. My search didn't find the sources necessary to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unsourced BLP. I also don't see anything that shows notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:24, 3 September 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) 20:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Nanostructure in Chemistry[edit]

Journal of Nanostructure in Chemistry (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 journal, no independent sources, not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There's one piece of significant coverage (a few paragraphs). ^King Jakob _C2 11:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

week keep Scirus and Summon by Serial Solutions are all selective databases AFAIK, therefore the journal meets WP:NJOURNALS, IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scirus, as our article correctly states, is a comprehensive search engine. Serials is very much trying to be comprehensive, too (for both, this makes perfect sense given the services they want to provide). Neither is very selective, they'll include almost any journal claiming to be peer-reviewed. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No results in JSTOR meaning no other major journal article references any articles from it. Might be a case of too soon, only about 3 years old. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, if we delete, we may very well have to recreate this article in a year or so, given that it's under consideration for an impact factor last I heard. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for many AfDs. Anything may become notable some time in the future, but WP is not a crystal ball... --Randykitty (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am still trying to make up my mind.

Also, Headbomb's last comment is based in fact. According to this journal's web site: "SpringerOpen is working closely with Thomson Reuters (ISI) to ensure that citation analysis of articles published in Journal of Nanostructure in Chemistry will be available," (please see comment here).

Pertaining to "Summon by Serial Solutions", this is not really an indexing service that is useful for determining notability. It is actually a tool (an efficient search service?) that is integrated into a local public or college library's services; "allowing users to effectively search and navigate across almost all of the library’s resources" [63]. It looks like an efficient library indexing service, based on what a library or its search engine has on hand. In other words, even after integrating the Summons service it appears to be only relevant to the library's "resources". Summons calls this a "discovery service" and does not even pretend to call it a selective database. If I may extrapolate, even if tens of libraries' resources are connected over a network, as is the case where I live, and seems to be the case with a college that has a certain number of libraries, it seems to be only an effiecient search and navigating tool. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any publisher will try to get TR coverage for their journals, the trick is getting. I wish I had made a notice of this because I can't remember the name now, but a while ago I saw a Springer journal that had folded after only 3-years or so of publication, showing that even established publishers like them produce the occasional dud. So until TR actually accept this journal for coverage, it's not notable as far as I am concerned. --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NJournals and WP:TOOSOON. The content will not be difficult to re-create if this eventually becomes notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 1 September 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) 20:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Insights[edit]

Autism Insights (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 was PRODded with reason "Relatively young journal publishing each year a handful of articles, published by Libertas Academica, which is on Beall's list of predatory OA publishers. Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." It was de-PRODded by User:Headbomb with reason"plenty of databases", which were added to the article. None of these databases being major and selective, the PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Gale, EBSCO, and ProQuest databases are all selective AFAIK. So yes, that journals meets WP:NJOURNALS, IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the best of my knowledge, Gale is not very selective. EBSCO and ProQuest are not really "major" databases and although somewhat selective, they're pretty inclusive. I also find it a very bad sign that a journal on this topic is not included in any medical database. --Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Gale, EBSCO and Proquest are great databases I use all the time because they are so inclusive, if there is nothing there likely it doesn't exist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It seems to me that this journal needs to be listed by services that are more selective and less inclusive to merit inclusion. Also, citation rates on Google Scholar do not appear to be impressive [64]. Also, I agree that this journal has not published a lot of papers because it is still very young. Hence, this journal has not had a significant impact in its field.

For futher information, I am posting three articles. One is from a 2012 Los Angeles Times blog that covers predatory OA journals in general, and mentions Libertas Academia by name and behavior, as well as some other publishers with questionable practices [65].

In the second article, nine predatory OA journals are analyzed by Bealle himself in the The Charleston Advisor (actually an academic journal) [66], including "Libertas Academica". On its website The Charleston Advisor states that it "... publishes critical reviews of online resources for libraries. To maintain a high level of accuracy and integrity, all reviews are peer-reviewed by experienced librarians. Our reviewers come from all areas of librarianship and from all types of libraries..." (link for journal).

~~Finally, a third~~ Third, a blog entitled "Jeffrey Beall’s List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers, 2012 Edition" discusses his or her own experience and research regarding questionable publishers, and also lists "Libertas Academia" (based on Beall's listings) [67]. I guess they're all spreading the word. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article in the journal Nature that covers the support for Beall's listings, and the controversy surrounding these listings [68]. Apparently it's not a perfect world. Also, to view Beall's critera for selection, open the collapsible box near the end of the article. (Uh-oh, I must be getting into this) --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more in depth "Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers" by Mr. Beall [69] (2nd edition / December 1, 2012). Also, in the right hand column it appears that he has links to "recent posts" where he provides more in-depth coverage of individual publishers, and links to "archives" if anyone is interested. I think this will do it for me. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons above. Bluehotel (talk) 08:23, 4 September 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) 20:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological effects of adolescent sex[edit]

Psychological effects of adolescent sex (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 is a clear WP:POV fork of Adolescent sexuality in the United States, and it exists only to list all the perceived negative aspects of adolescent sexuality. Before it was blanked for WP:NPOV violations, this was the only content, and I do not see how the scope allows for any rebuttals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't approve of this 53+K article being essentially blanked before being hauled to AfD. Trout applied as appropriate. It is or was, however, a clear POV fork. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I stubbed it in lieu of nominating for deletion, in case it would be possible to restart the article in a NPOV manner. If you would prefer that it be unstubbed while awaiting deletion, that would be fine by me. I thought stubbing would be a less-invasive, less-processual way of getting to that end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be a huge waste of editors' time if the person nominating every article for deletion blanked it as was done to this one (except for a brief summary). There is a notice right in the AFD template and in the guide to deletion which says not to blank the article (unless it is a copyright violation, which has not been alleged here). Therefore I will try and restore it to an earlier version which includes the text and references which people are deciding the fate of here, so they can make informed decisions without a) uncritically accepting what the nominator and previous editors have said here in AFD, or b) digging through the article's edit history. Edison (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Really, it would behoove you to look at the article history before making an accusation. I stubbed it BEFORE anyone nominated it for deletion. See this diff. My goal was to create an NPOV stub available for restart if someone wanted to try. I have no objection to deleting it, but accusing me of doing something wrong or against policy is ludicrous. "On occasion, an article may have severe problems that require much of its content to be removed. This may be done in response to an article that is heavily biased, either for or against its subject; an article that has some verifiable material but is otherwise full of original research; in response to an OTRS complaint; or a variety of other reasons." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Ugh. I warned NbSB that his edits could result in this kind of drama. He did not know that I was going to nominate the article for deletion, and his edits were made in good faith. As he has pointed out, stubbing the article is well within guidelines, and there is no conspiracy here. Now that we've had our bit of drama, I hope that we can move on and get back to the topic at hand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for the mistaken criticism, which I have struck. There had been discussion of the stubbing and impending AFD nom on the talk page of a different article than the one being discussed here, but it took some digging to find it, and a reference to it on the talk page of the present article would have been helpful, as context, or it could have been referred to on this page You as nominator were aware of possible issues with AFD of a blanked article. It would have been better to restore it before nominating it. Edison (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV fork, if it can't be restarted there then it should be deleted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read much of the long version. This is among the worst kinds of POV pushing and cherry-picking of sources, the kind that is done for a "good cause" Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopeless POV pushing in any of its prior forms. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete POV fork - probably inherently so under this title. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and close per WP:SNOW. I can see what the creator was trying to do but WP isn't the place for that. Stalwart111 12:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adolescent sexuality in the United States, though I'm not sure affects are confined merely to the U.S. Student7 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 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 List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Labelas Enoreth[edit]

Labelas Enoreth (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)

While it appears in a handful of works within the D&D fiction, most of these appear to be passing mentions. Certainly this is not one of the core characters in the fiction. A slightly expanded coverage at List of Forgotten Realms deities should suffice. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. No significant coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources, topic fails to establish notability and thus doesn't deserve a stand-alone article per WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities; this character is not Forgotten Realms specific. BOZ (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no third party independent sources for this fictional deity: fails WP:N. delete or if there is deemed appropriate content and an appropriate target article, merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities unless and until significant coverage comes up for this relatively minor deity. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ, as there is disagreement over the appropriate merge target, and no one is arguing that there is no appropriate merge target, which is in line with WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities#Demideities. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valkur[edit]

Valkur (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)

While it is listed in the campaign guide (along with several dozen other deities) and has a passing mention in at least one work of fiction, this certainly this is not one of the core characters in the fiction. The existing coverage at List of Forgotten Realms deities#Demideities should suffice. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities#Demideities (existing coverage there is sufficient). No significant coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources, topic fails to establish notability and thus doesn't deserve a stand-alone article per WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting Keep from? I don't see any non-trivial coverage of this character. Every mention that's cited is a "and here's a list of the gods in this campaign setting and two lines of flavor text to help your DM build a campaign" type mention. That doesn't meet the threshold of notability. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
from "Its D&D Therefore the RULES dont apply."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no third party coverage to indicate notability. delete or merge if there is an appropriate target. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities unless and until significant coverage comes up for this relatively minor deity. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no evidence of any prior editorial discussion re: merging, sourcing, etc. is evident on the talk page, making this nomination premature. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a valid argument. There is nothing required that any of that happen before a deletion nomination. The article has sat for seven years without anything of value added to it, and it has also been tagged for problems for years and part of merge discussions a couple times seeing as you haven't even bothered to look at the history of the article. TTN (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list. This currently has nothing to establish it as a topic. TTN (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities#Demideities. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Velsharoon[edit]

Velsharoon (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)

While it appears in a handful of works within the D&D fiction, most of these appear to be passing mentions. Certainly this is not one of the core characters in the fiction. The existing coverage at [[70]] should suffice. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities#Demideities (existing coverage there is sufficient). No significant coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources, topic fails to establish notability and thus doesn't deserve a stand-alone article per WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge appropriate content to List of Forgotten Realms deities#Demideities Web Warlock (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no third party sources covering the subject, thus fails WP:N. delete or merge if there is any appropriate content for an appropriate target article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities unless and until significant coverage comes up for this relatively minor deity. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no evidence of any prior editorial discussion re: merging, sourcing, etc. is evident on the talk page, making this nomination premature. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 7 September 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) 20:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arnastin[edit]

Arnastin (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 and no sources. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unreferenced, unverifiable, written in a non-encyclopedic style, asserts the game will never be marketed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and asserts that has never been marketed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article about role-playing game written by SPA, apparently the game's creator. The article cites no sources and makes no assertions of notability, apart from "if the manufacturer contacts, you have been allowed a prestigious honor". A Google search for ("arnastin") turns up no English-language sources indicative of notability; many of the hits were in languages other than English, but none of them looked especially promising; most of them appeared to be people's names or usernames. (The creator's name, Aaron J. Lukenbach, suggests that he'd be an English speaker, although some of the prose in the article suggests otherwise.) Delete on failure to meet GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 18:11, 29 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YL Ventures[edit]

YL Ventures (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 indication of notability Given references are purely announcements of investments. Google searches not finding any in depth coverage of the company. noq (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as probably "too soon". $27 million is (sadly?) pocket change in the venture world these days. If mentioned enough times as funding notable company then I would say some grounds to have an article (again the breadth vs. depth of coverage argument though). Looking at the companies listed, they are somewhat dubious too, in early stages with some notability challenges of their own. If nobody else wants to rescue, could be userified under my user space, in case future rounds come along or the companies in the current rounds survive to become more truly notable. Any article that uses the word "solution" that does not pertain to solutions or "cloud" that has nothing to do with clouds is questionable in my experience as being buzzword puff. W Nowicki (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing particular found in a search. As nominator noted, the references in the article are routine announcements of investments (and IMO they smell like rewritten-press-release "churnalism"); in any case they are not significantly ABOUT the company. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, article is written according to guidelines of Wikipedia. --Wikifan115 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet WP:ORG? noq (talk) 20:42, 26 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) 02:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there's some coverage there but most of it simply confirms this is just another VC company with a small number of mid-tier investments to its name. WP:TOOSOON seems about right. The coverage that lists the company as "and others" is telling I think. I'd be fine with userfication if someone wants to babysit this. Give it a year or something - it'll get there. Stalwart111 12:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the article's creator, I will try to address the notability concerns mentioned above. Indeed, $27.5M VC fund is not so big in Silicon Valley, however it is quite significant in the Israeli market, where the firm invests. YL Ventures is one of the most notable venture capital firms in Israel, with wide coverage from the local press. I did not include these sources due to language barrier. A Venture Capital firm is measured mostly by its portfolio companies. Since YL Ventures is a relatively young fund, most of its companies haven't reached maturity, however they are known mostly to industry experts. For example, see Seculert and BlazeMeter WP Articles and their references. All of the references in the article are from the most prominent news sources of the global high-tech industry. Some of these articles might be laconic, however these mentions suggest that YL Ventures and its portfolio companies are sufficiently notable. This type of coverage is the standard for Ventures Capital firms, you are welcome to compare this article to larger VC firms' WP pages. This article will expand over time, as YL Ventures invests in more companies from its new fund Oferschr (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that VC firms (this one and others) don't inherit notability from their portfolios. We are judging the notability of the firm itself, not the firm "and its portfolio companies". If we did so, then every "Mom and Dad" managed fund investor who put money into Facebook would be notable. It doesn't work that way. You should also know that while the existence of articles for other companies might be a helpful comparison in building new ones, it has no real impact on the notability of this company or any other.

What might help your case is the existence of news media and other sources from Israel. Sources are not required to be in English. That said, for the purposes of this discussion it might help if you were able to explain what new sources say so that those here can judge for themselves. Even better if you can find someone to help with translation who is not connected to the creation of the article. (Neither is required, you just have a better chance of building consensus that way). What we're looking for are sources that discuss the history of the firm, the activities of the firm beyond its day-to-day business. More routine business announcements - YL supported X or YL invests in Y - aren't as valuable. Stalwart111 21:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second Stalwart111's suggestions: extensive coverage in non-English Israeli sources might well uncontroversially establish the notability of this fund. Mandalini (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 29 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. Notable secondary school. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amnuay Silpa School[edit]

Amnuay Silpa School (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 has spent several years tagged requesting references and as an orphan, no attempt has been made to improve the article. School lacks notability in numerous reliable sources and it is time to go. Superman7515 (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - tough one, so I'll explain my reasoning. First, we have WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which suggests secondary school like this are generally kept as notable. Second, there is coverage out there including this from 1958, this about some partnership arrangement and this (which is about the same "story" as the second but from a different paper). Those are what I could find with a quick search but I'm sure there must be more, given the school has been around since 1926. There's probably enough for me, but I'm more than happy to talk about it. Stalwart111 13:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not tough at all per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - the school is proven to exist as a mainstream high school providing secondary education until school-leaving age, and that here in Thailand is the Mathayom class (17 - 18 years old). The Thai government wouldn't take kindly to just any school using Silpa in its name - Silpa Bhirasri is a very important figure in Thai education. I taught at the public Silpakorn University for a while - would the nominator like to propose that article for deletion too, just because it is scant on sources? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silpa simply means "art". There are loads of people and organisations with silpa in their names. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That wouldn't be a bad idea either considering there are no sources on the page and in order to establish notability an individual must have widespread reliable secondary sources, however, that is not what the discussion is about. As notabiity is not inherited (WP:INHERITORG), naming the school after someone of possible notabilty is not enough to establish notability for the school itself. Also, as standard operating procedure is that no article is inherently notable (WP:ORGSIG), the article as it stands fails WP:N. Even WP:NHS states that high schools must meet WP:N and WP:ORG which states "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." While there is incidental coverage on the school, it does not appear to meet the standard of significant coverage.Superman7515 (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. Did you conduct any of the searches/actions required by WP:BEFORE? Articles should not be nominated for deletion just because they currently have no sources (though that seems to be what you are suggesting here and with regard to Silpakorn University). They should be nominated for deletion if, having done your own search, no sources could be found. I found some with a very, very quick search. What did your search turn up? Stalwart111 22:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is confused: Mentioning Silpa and the university was clearly not intended as a rationale to keep the article within our policies, guidelines, and their exceptions and precedents. It was stated to provide background only and to demonstrate that the nominator is unaware of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If this was a minor, back-street cram school it would be different and almost certainly deleted - and with my strong support. It isn't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Stalwart111 23:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/reply to above - The general consensus is at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which is somewhat WP:IAR in that 1) these schools are generally important in their communities and 2) given enough time and searching, enough sources can be found so that they pass WP:ORG: instead of merging, deleting, or userfying as we may do to other articles while this happens, schools offering secondary and higher education are kept because of point 1. Ansh6 6 6 19:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without regard to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (which I generally disagree with anyway). Amnuay Silpa is simply notable per the WP:GNG in its own right. Among its alumni are six prime ministers. A cursory Google search turns up recent coverage from the Bangkok Post, The Nation', Prachachat Turakij and Krungthep Thurakij, among others. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school, for reasons endlessly reiterated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 2 September 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) 20:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hewson (composer)[edit]

Dave Hewson (composer) (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)

David Hewson will be remembered by some people or Spongebob fans as a composer for the APM Music library, and he composed themes for many channels. However, considering the fact that Notability is not inherited, I have no benefit that this article satisfies the amount of notability Wikipedia expects.
The first issue is that are two tags concerning that it only includes info from primary sources and that it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Second, the only non-primary sources I could find here was this non-secondary or independent APM page and about only a minor quote from him in this BBC News. No books about or going in-depth in some way about the composer came up when I was looking on Google Books. Again, I know he's composed music for a lot of TV shows, but that doesn't mean he's notable enough for a wikipedia article. As I've said before, "Notability is not inherited," and all you users should know that by now. Hopefully some user will come up to this page and find a major interview or some other independent, secondary in-depth sources about the subject, but as of now, he fails WP:COMPOSER in that he does not "appear at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music," and WP:MUSICBIO in that he has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." But most of all, he fails WP:GNG. Thank you all for reading this. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 00:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion for deletion seems badly researched and un founded, many articles and reviews can be found discussing Dave Hewson's contribution to musical culture, also his work in the New Wave music scene with Twins Natalia and Poeme Electronique cannot be ignored. He has contributed greatly to the development of production music worldwide, for the past 30 years. It is also incorrect to quote APM as a main link to David Hewsons work. his main output controller is EMI, again bad research. He is definitely not best known for the music included in Spongebob, but his music for the major news coverage broadcaster worldwide, ITN/ITV, he has written the theme music, for the past 25 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davehewson (talk • contribs) 08:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, could you show me the many "articles and reviews," cause I couldn't find shit? And again, notability is not inherited, so arguing that "He has contributed greatly to the development of production music worldwide, for the past 30 years" and "his music for the major news coverage broadcaster worldwide, ITN/ITV, he has written the theme music, for the past 25 years" is well known is not worth it for a deletion discussion on Wikipedia. 和DITOR E tails 16:26, 26 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!*} 00:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excluding the sources covering Bono, I'm seeing quite a bit of coverage for this subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an author David Hewson.. But this subject is also noted in books such as [71] and [72]. I suspect there is probably Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)additional coverage in niche publications not easily available online. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article in Sound on Sound about Dave Hewson (Composer) and his studio and work. 1980s published, not available online. Currently researching exact date of publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davehewson (talk • contribs) 07:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these arguments are WP:OSO and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Please whoever is closing this debate ignore them. 和DITOR E tails 15:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "but as of now, he fails WP:COMPOSER" is clearly a flawed argument for deletion - he has worldwide notability by the nature of production music, it is circulated and used globally.
Okay, fine. Maybe I should've better research on this topic, so I'll withdraw the nomination, but I would suggest somebody do something with that Notability issue tag that's on the page right now. 和DITOR E tails 01:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he is notable (as I tried to explain above), but a couple of these comments are from editors that have only edited this article subject and appear closely related to the subject. At the very least an explanation of Wikipedia's policy's regarding conflicts of interest, socking (using more than one account to edit) and the appropriate way for involved parties to edit (ie. posting to talk page and refraining from making edits themselves) should probably be pointed out.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:46, 29 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 redirect to It's on the Meter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Archer (adventurer)[edit]

Paul Archer (adventurer) (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 taxi trip itself is notable; it already has a page, It's_on_the_Meter. If that is the only notable thing Archer has done, and as far as I can tell it is, that page suffices to document it. The rest seems to be an extensive PR puff for his business. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to It's on the Meter as that seems to be it for the moment. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- He seems to have done very little. The whole thing looks like WP:ADVERT to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 17 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!*} 01:08, 20 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!*} 00:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to It's on the Meter as per nom and reasonable suggestion by Whpq. No reason to delete the article and lose the history entirely. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to It's on the Meter. Currently a BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:38, 28 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BugScore[edit]

BugScore (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. This article's sourcing at first looks impressive, but consists of anonymous "stories" which consist of essentially blog entries and self-published material. There are no reliable sources present, let alone anything by any named author, and upon searching, I can't find any. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (state) @ 10:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The VentureBurn reference seems legit, but the others don't seem to be particularly reliable publications—they look like blogs, self-published newsletters, and/or reprints of Bugscore press releases (or of the VentureBurn article). —Psychonaut (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep per VentureBurn source and Geekopedia source.--Darkesthoursoflife († • ©) 17:02, 23 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!*} 00:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage. not even a hit in gnews. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 28 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madeco[edit]

Madeco (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 was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:58, 20 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!*} 00:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Manifestly notable. Did the nominator look for sources? Could perhaps be merged into an article on the parent company Quiñenco Group, an even larger and more notable entity. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as its home market position, this firm is also lead shareholder in a French firm with a Wikipedia article, Nexans: [73], [74]. AllyD (talk) 20:16, 2 September 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inversiones Aguas Metropolitanas[edit]

Inversiones Aguas Metropolitanas (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 was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:59, 20 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!*} 00:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several sources in gnews search. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots os sources cover this company. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:07, 28 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banco Santander-Chile[edit]

Banco Santander-Chile (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 was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Redirect to Santander Group. Nothing to merge, really. -- Y not? 14:12, 22 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!*} 00:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Largest bank in Chile. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highbeam turns up a lot of ongoing Moody's & Fitch assessments of the bank, information on the parent group selling part of its holding etc. Adding these to its size in its own market and its NYSE listing, I think there is enough for company notability. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a large division (500 branches) of one of the largest banks in the Spanish-speaking world (from Spain to its former colonies in latin America). Bearian (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fibria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votorantim Celulose e Papel[edit]

Votorantim Celulose e Papel (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 was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that an IP added the category of defunct companies in Brazil to this article. Does anyone know if it really is defunct? I am One of Many (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Redirect to Fibria. Nothing to merge, really, but also no basis for deletion - a clearly notable component of a larger notable enterprise, a LatAm top 40 company. A poorly thought-out nomination. -- Y not? 14:11, 22 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!*} 00:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another very large and notable South American company. What's with these noms? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the nominator believed the sockpuppeteer original editor simply produced a ton of non-notable articles. Sadly, he has seemingly nominated tons of them without adequately examining their notability. This is probably because of a language barrier and a predisposition to believe these sock-authored articles aren't notable, but still, all articles should be properly examined prior to being brought to AfD. NewAccount4Me (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sockpuppeteer in question had produced many of non-notable articles over the years according to previous speedy deletion notifications on their talk pages and AfDs. All of the articles I nominated had no references after years of requesting them. I checked each one for notability, but knowledge of the languages and region created issues I could not resolve. About a third of the socks' creations did not have notability that I could be sure about. I'm happy if all of them are kept because there will have been verification by the apparently very few editors capable of making these decisions. Without verifiability and sources, articles in Wikipedia and nothing more than stories. I am One of Many (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps it would be better for someone with knowledge of the language and knowledge of the region to screen these. I don't try to sort out what articles of a group are worth saving in subjects I do not understand. I don't nominate articles for being unsourced unless I know enough to make a try at looking for sources. Perhaps the solution is to consider inclusion of companies on a basis of verified size, not sourcing. I'd set the level for that pretty high, and assume that all companies beyond , say .$100 or $200 million in sales will certainly prove to have sources. Another screening in inclusion in a major stock exchange--I'd again be discriminating here, but I would include the NYSE. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I agree with you completely. Of the articles I screened, about 2/3 looked notable independent of knowing the languages–I found articles about the company in reliable sources. Many of these I added references to. I then made the bold move of proposing the remaining 1/3 for which I had some doubt about, knowing that they would get screened. In retrospect, I probably should have contacted some of the admins who regularly work at AfD to get a pre-screening of the articles. Even though I may not have done this in the best way, the result is still good for Wikipedia: articles created by problematic editors are getting systematically screened with editors with the appropriate background knowledge. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fibria as suggested above. Our usual practice is to keep the material under the most recent name, unless it gets much too complicated. I don;t consider the nature of the editor who created it relevant when it's material as straightforward as this. Anyone should be able to edit, if they edit properly, and the criterion for properly is the nature of what they add. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:21, 29 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asura Balbalta[edit]

Asura Balbalta (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 musical release. No evidence of charting, awards or independent in depth coverage. Completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep. See Korean-language article and Google search. notable album. Kanghuitari (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read Korean, but there's only a single ref on the Korean article, which doesn't scream of notability to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone add ref in English Wikipedia. Kanghuitari (talk) 11:00, 28 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge as there is an existing article on the band Leessang. No need for a deletion discussion on a subject where the parent entity has an article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:19, 28 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 Leessang. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leessang Company[edit]

Leessang Company (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 company. No independent refs. No extra refs in the Korean language wikipedia to steal. No evidence that it meets WP:CORP. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. see google search. Kanghuitari (talk) 12:37, 27 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Leessang. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - what little there is. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:05, 6 September 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) 20:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013 Beirut bombing[edit]

July 2013 Beirut bombing (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 article is only a few sentences and past its creation time with no expansion. This is WP:NOTNEWS and the content can either go on List of terrorist incidents, January-June, 2013 or on the timelines of the Syrian civil war.
Related concurrent nominations:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Cotabato City bombing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Krong Pinang bombing

Lihaas (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to demonstrate or make any claim that it will have any lasting significance, it therefore fails the inclusion policy. It received news coverage because it was a news story. LGA _talk^edits 20:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep - passes notability threshold, since it is widely mentioned in media one month later (not just a news event). See [75] (quote from 15 August NYT "Aware of the threat, Hezbollah had stepped up security in the area, residents said, after the bombing last month, in the nearby neighborhood of Bir al-Abed, which wounded more than 50 people.").Greyshark09 (talk) 15:16, 23 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an article on recent violence and looming civil war in Lebanon. Broader subject is certainly notable and related to Syrian civil war. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NOTNEWS exists because boring local papers will cover boring local things because they have nothing better to do. This event was covered in newspapers all over the world. Xrt6L (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with user xrt6lixrt6l.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:26, 4 September 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) 20:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lookwell[edit]

Lookwell (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)

Unaired pilot. I could only find sources mentioning it in passing — "Conan wrote Lookwell in 1991 and went on to write for The Simpsons blah blah blah", that lot. In other words, just passive mentions of it being an early work of his, nothing more. This was the only source I could find that gave more than a small amount of detail. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's referred to pretty frequently on Simpsons commentary tracks, and articles such as the one here suggest there is a cult, however small, that is interested in this hilarious piece of pop-culture ephemera. Jason Nebergall (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)nui6882[reply]

I'm inclined to say keep for the reasons noted above. We do often have pages about TV pilots, whether they're picked up or not, assuming that the actors/crew involved are significantly notable; this one is widely available and evidently has a following exceeding the usual pilots the major studios pump out every year. Although this can't be used as a justification for keeping per se, the page view statistics indicate a fairly steady number of views, and for some reason over 1787 views on one day in May 2013. Bob talk 13:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited though (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Notable people can work on something that isn't notable in its own right. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implying it makes any difference, I did a Google search for anything published before 2005, and found a 2004 interview between The A.V. Club and Robert Smigel, with a few paragraphs dedicated to the pilot (here). — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 16:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another good interview published in And Here's the Kicker: Conversations with 21 Top Humor Writers on Their Craft (here). Interviews do seem to contain a lot of goodies about the pilot (that isn't just brief mentions), perhaps I can integrate them into the article at some point. — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 16:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Went and added those sources to the article (too much free time). Still pretty bare bones, but I think it's in better shape. — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 18:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, worked on it a great deal, calling it a day: do you think my added information did a good job of saving this? — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 03:38, 26 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion and additional sourcing and content added. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion, presence on Trio network, and quality of article. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Great work on the article, Whisternefet. Xrt6L (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Whisternefet ^(talk/_contribs) 23:56, 31 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 Userfy. Who is going to take the article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series)

Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series) (2nd nomination)

Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series) (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 picture of the cover was released on the site's facebook page. This album will be released but this does not deserve an article yet. While popular, these albums rarely receive significant coverage in reliable sources even after being released. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It will have more information in the next coming months. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes it not notable now and at the very least a redirect is warranted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:27, 25 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy pending future coverage promised.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Seems the best option. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Send to Articles for Creation until it's ready for mainspace. 92.24.188.2 (talk · contribs), let me know if you succeed in keeping an article by saying "fuck" a few times. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles about releases in these series appear to be an accepted part of Wikipedia, but I've looked at a few and they are unreferenced or almost unreferenced. Do any cite sources sufficient to adequately demonstrate notability? Peter James (talk) 16:54, 30 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) 20:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Meisner[edit]

Micah Meisner (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 idea about what it says about notability, but Google shows little more than blogs. James^x1 2345 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is not in good shape, but the subject is notable. He has 4 Juno nominations, and won for 2 of them (see [76]). Juno Awards of 2005#Video of the Year confirmed with this Billboard item. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if the subject is notable, you still need references for the article; but I would have made it notable if someone would have found citations for this article. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AFD is not cleanup. The addition of sourcing is an editorial action that does not require deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:30, 26 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be quite a bit of coverage available in Google News archives including this bit in a Wired story. Article needs work, but the subject appears to be quite notable and to have been recognized with nominations and awards within his field. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:29, 28 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.