< 17 December	19 December >

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. Daniel (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early childhood educator[edit]

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

Article has failed WP:DEL#REASON #7 for over four years. Ben^Yes? 23:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Early childhood education; merge anything useful. The page on the profession even lists prominent early childhood educators already. Ivanvector (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per WP:CHEAP and Gene. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to early childhood education (which isn't doing that much better, but is an established topic). The educator article is unreferenced and the available refs pertain to the field and not the occupation (also it still reads like the essay it was at its 2005 creation). Redirect, and it can always break out summary-style again if need be. Nothing sourced to merge. czar ♔ 14:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taieb Znati[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of article fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and Guidelines for Professional/Academic listing. Subject is not notable and a search reveals that subject has not published hardly anything recently. Requesting registered user to please create this article's AFD page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.102.180 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And so I did. Neutral. Ansh6 6 6 22:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several hugely-cited articles/books on GScholar. Meet WP:ACADEMIC#1. See also the previous AfD. That the subject has not published much recently (I didn't check that but take the word of the nom for this) is not relevant, notability is not temporary. --Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason as last time — highly cited publications giving a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just passes WP:Prof#C1 in this highly cited subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:58, 21 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love Selection[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seams to lack Notability. Google search goves almost no results. [1] Vanjagenije (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably notable, as it was published by Fantagraphics; in any case, if this is deleted, Gunma Kisaragi should be kept. --CIRCLE OUTER WORLD (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this proves it was physically published, not just some online thing - http://books.google.com/books?id=nb85YgEACAAJ&dq=%22Love+Selection%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pSayUuCdKuWN2gXSzICwCw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA --CIRCLE OUTER WORLD (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. It does not follow from the fact that we have an article about the publisher that all works by the publisher also deserve articles. The publisher is notable enough for an article, this book does not seem to be. Novusuna ^talk 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per Novusuna. Also, in reference to Gunma Kisaragi that article is being considered for deletion under WP:BLPPROD. This isn't really the place to argue for keeping it. I have no real opinion on the notability of that person at this time, but if you want to keep it, jut find a third-party reliable source and put it in the article to support a claim made. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 19 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creanovatology[edit]

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

Newly created/coined as well as not notable discipline and portmanteau. Found no significant coverage to show meets WP:GNG. Sourced by webpage connected with the subject. Previously deleted as WP:CSD#g11. Was recreated with a stub that G11 would not wrap around. PRODed instead. G11 was declined on this iteration when it was a bare-bone stub. DePRODed, so here we are. Content now moving back in G11 direction. Looks like another rehash of some sort of motivational speech involving creativity and innovation. Taken at it's best, it's original research. Looks speediable to me, but I can't be objective right now. Bringing to AfD in case I have it all wrong, but I found no significant coverage Dlohcierekim 22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NEO. Neologism coined by the inventor, with no significant coverage in secondary sources. Google turned up many results in Iranian which appeared to be directory sites, not useful for WP:V. Ivanvector (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MEDRS and WP:COI. There are no reliable sources to back up the extraordinary claims in the article, and the article author appears to have a close, self-promotional relationship to the article subject, based on contribution history. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no Ghits worth counting - including scholar and books. Neoligism that hasn't spread to the web. Not notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment @Neonchameleon:is "counting ghits" once again a measure of notability? I thought it discredited long ago. You might want to reconsider your rationale. Dlohcierekim 15:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you are trying to do with it. Trying to prove non-notability is hard as is any attempt to prove a negative - all you can really do is show that things aren't there. I fully agree that a lot of ghits doesn't make things notable. But when Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books are finding nothing useful about a neoligism or something else contemporary it's a good indication the expected sources aren't there. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was discredited was using lack of g-hits as evidence of lack of notability. One single source could contain of significant, verifiable coverage. Don't do much AfD anymore, but I'm intrigued after having been shot down on using this rationale in the past. Dlohcierekim 16:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spammy promotion of a neologism. LadyofShalott 18:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced WP:NEO. --McGeddon (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why deletion ?!! Creanovatology = Creatology = Innovation Science = Studies on Creativity and Innovation . This scientific issue is well known and very important .Deletion is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuzesh (talk • contribs) 11:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC) — Amuzesh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome Amuzesh! I and the commenters above have searched and have found no evidence that this concept is well known among scientists. For inclusion in Wikipedia, it's required that an independent source can verify that claim, in this case probably a write-up in a scientific journal, and definitely something not written by Dr. Hashemi. Please see our guide to reliable sources, in particular the section on scholarly works. If you can provide a good source that backs up your claim and meets our guidelines, that will go a long way towards saving the article. Ivanvector (talk) 16:14, 24 December 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 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Get to work! SarahStierch (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not expand on what is parent article with anything of note, the days of mourning and football observance is already covered in main article and is just not notable for a stand-alone article MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per reasons given in prior AfD such as (a) main article size too large, (b) similar treatment by other articles (e.g. Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings) and (c) the information is verifiable in reliable sources. Ajh1492 (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. I don't see the need for having a separate article; a section in parent seems more appropriate.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jetstreamer Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jetstreamer - the articles are not both so long that this material cannot exist in one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Merge. Short enough to fit in 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, does not meet the criteria for a spinoff article per WP:SS. Sandstein 10:07, 26 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Max Jones (journalist)[edit]

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

A biography of a living person that doesn't tell us why he's important. He's a very young journalist (WP:BLP1E) - he's written his own website and interviewed 2 people, and apparently shot a documentary film that hasn't been released. The whole history behind this article and others (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seoul Sisters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lillian Wu suggests a WP:COI (and use of multiple sockpuppets) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability asserted - or found on Google. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:11, 19 December 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. After ignoring the opinion by Breadbasket because of their disruptive conduct ("Germans never learn; there will be a WW3"), there is consensus to delete the article. Sandstein 10:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg line of succession[edit]

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

Non-notable, unsourced, original research. DrKiernan (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Material appears at the Members of the House of Oldenburg article. Seven Letters 00:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as deletion will erase the article's history and some important details. A separate article is not needed, as the main article is not very long. Ducal familaies are not inherently notable. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: The House of Glücksburg is not an ordinary, defunct German princely house. They are former, present, and future power-holders in several European kingdoms, including Norway, whose King is a close heir to the position as family head. I find it a bit ignorant to call this line of succession 'non-notable', I have to admit. I wish more information and sources, though. I have found an interesting publication in this regard: Die Legitime Erbfolge in Schleswig-Holstein (The Legitimate Line of Succession in Schleswig-Holstein). However, I have to check who was the author. Both the title and the year 1864 (Second Schleswig War) make me suspect that this might be pro-Prussian propaganda. — Breadbasket 20:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was notable, there would be sources for it. DrKiernan (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One is free to claim that. — Breadbasket 21:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article". DrKiernan (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the case of German princely houses, it is broadly known that lines of succession are based on agnatic primogeniture. Demanding a source for this fact is just as unnecessary as demanding a source for that there are fjords in Norway; it is sufficient to desire a source. Otherwise, I see nothing incorrect, inaccurate or inappropriate with the content of this article. The ((Refimprove)) template should remain there, though. — Breadbasket 14:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Broadly known" by whom? Are you claiming that any John Smith you ran into in the street would know that lines of succession to German princely houses are based on agnatic primogeniture? I doubt he would know what "agnatic" means. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith does not belong to the German-Nordic cultural sphere. Among Germans and Nordics, however, the principle of 'oldest son' is broadly known, not least because it occurs even in farmer-related legislation during the past 1,000 years, for example the Odelsrett and the Åsetesrett in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway. The Norwegian odel system follows exactly the same principles as the system for succession of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg headship: older before younger, close before distant. — Breadbasket 16:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not written for people who belong to the German-Nordic cultural sphere. It is written for John Smiths, Jane Does and the general population. Besides, using a 1000-year-old farmer-related legislation to create an imaginary line of succession is pure synthesis. If the matter is as obvious as you claim it to be, then the article is not necessary; it is a matter of genealogical research in which, apparently, no scholar has been interested in. That makes it unnotable and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Study objects are to be treated and presented within their cultural frames. German princely houses, for instance, are not treated within British cultural frames. Thus, one cannot determine the notability of German princely houses, in casu their succession system, on whether John Smith is familiar with German culture and tradition. — Breadbasket 17:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Study objects are to be presented along with sources. You cannot claim that sources are not needed because something is "broadly known", especially not when it is not broadly known by the general human population. The lack of such sources is what proves that the article subject is unnotable. Surtsicna (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable and therefore unsourceable original research. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One can neither demand nor expect every of several hundred German houses to have third-party-published and constantly updated and correct literature regarding their respective lines of succession. The agnatic primogeniture is a common tradition for nearly all German princely houses. — Breadbasket 16:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One can, however, demand a proof of notability. Coverage proves notability, and the subject of this article is not covered by sources. Therefore, it is not notable. I could create a line of succession to the Angevin throne of Hungary, but what good would that be if no scholar has ever done that? Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, line of succession to a fantasy throne, no significance demonstrated. —Kusma (t·c) 15:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not a throne; it is a nominal position. Why do you allow yourself to vote over something you are not able to identify adequately? — Breadbasket 16:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse. Those people are said to be in line to something as abstract as a "nominal position", which explains the lack of notability. Surtsicna (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am staying neutral but the bigger I see is the fact that the majority of the article is devoted to the line of succession of the head of the house while the bottom section talks about the title of Dukes of Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg (why is this even relevant, the two other titles are not connected to this) for no apparent reason. By mentioning the King of Denmark's claim to Schleswig and Holstein, you neglect the fact the head of the House of Glücksburg himself claims to be the Duke/Prince of Schleswig-Holstein, inheriting the claim forwarded by the Augustenborg's against the Glücksburg Kings of Denmark.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The present head of the House of Glücksburg is a Glücksburg and not an Augustenburg. None of them possesses or may rightfully claim to possess the duchies Schleswig and Holstein, that are Danish and attached to Denmark, respectively. A female, Denmark's present monarch does not bear these two titles, that are restricted to males, but I do not know whether they have been officially relinquished. It could happen that the next King of Denmark will reassume them. — Breadbasket 21:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historically there were two claims to the duchies Schleswig and Holstein after 1863, one forwarded by the kings of Denmark and another initally by the Augustenburg. The former was inherited by the junior descendants of the Glucksburg aka Christian IX's descendants while the latter claim was inherited by the senior Glücksburg, the descendants of Christian IX's older brother, after the extinction of the Augustenburg. It makes no sense to even mention the Danish claim here and not the senior Glücksburg's claim. Mentioning the three ducal titles at all makes no sense on this article anyways since the title says this is suppose to be talking about the line of succession to the head of the house of Glucksburg. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An apropos in the article's introduction may be appropriate, especially when considering the current head's ambitions. Germans never learn; there will be a WW3. — Breadbasket 11:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this, that ascribe a moral failing to an entire cultural group, could easily be interpreted as racism and are not welcome here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, comments from User:Breadbasket above that it is unreasonable to expect that this would be contained in a reliable, notable, and accurate source lead me to believe that this article is original research, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Even if not, this is excessive detail for the topic, although a brief discussion would be appropriate in House of Glücksburg. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pressat[edit]

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

I do not think the very scanty references here prove notability -- but accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 December 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) 19:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Guardian, Google) turn up nothing substantial on this firm. Aside from the passing typical start-up coverage already referenced in the article, all that I am finding is this recent press announcement. A small firm going about is business but nothing of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 19 December 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. Sandstein 10:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Postwar Positioning of Kosovo[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Reads like an opinion article. Article was proded but prod was taken down. ...William 17:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the |list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions....William 21:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. This seems to be a research essay possibly written for a class. It is a remarkably good one, but it is not encyclopedic in style, and it would take a substantial amount of editing to make it meet the standards of Wikipedia. Go ahead and delete it. If someone wants to incorporate material from it into the Kosovo article, I would not necessarily be opposed to merging. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, interesting, but not an encyclopædia article. No objection to userification if the author wants to post it elsewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 26 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schick Technologies[edit]

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

no evidence at all for notability , but this has been in WP since 2006 !! DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is very short and fails WP:gng.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Sirona - the company that bought them out. Who are also up for deletion fo course. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keisuke Andrew[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights, no significant coverage, and nothing to show his grappling meets WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His notability is as a martial artist under WP:WPMA not as an MMA fighter under WP:MMABIO. His MMA career is tangential to overall notability. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how - please explain.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly know WP:WPMA as well as anyone Mr. Rehse. What seems confusing about this? The notability suggestions for MMA fighters and martial artists generally is vastly different. One could even argue his notability as an instructor, but there are admittedly less online citations available for that. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see notability as a martial artist that would take precedence over his MMA record.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which, in light of all the current notability essays on MMA, seems the least bit absurd, given that despite having a well-sourced, undefeated record at both the amateur and professional MMA level, his MMA notability amounts to zero here. So virtually anything substantiating notability would take precedence over his MMA record. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So which criteria under WP:MANOTE are you saying he meets and what are the sources? Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just saw this; it was hidden by the sorting tags. Look, I know what's going to happen here. We are going to spend forever citing and debating these essays ad nauseam. How about this; in the spirit of the new user's comment below and to cut to the chase, let's just look at the actual, established policy. As the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, his article satisfies the basic criteria of the GNG. Since the GNG supersedes the whole panoply of essays, what more is there to debate? Buddy23Lee (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wp:WPMA/N appears to be an essay not policy. So it defaults to GNG if not WP:MMABIO Neonchameleon (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't made a policy because it was deemed to be too much trouble and there was strong consensus about its content. Since most of your edits are within the past month, I consider you a new editor and would point out that even essays can be used in AfD discussions and that this particular set of criteria has been used in hundreds of AfD discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Careful now, in the wrong context some new editors might read the above paragraph as a WP:BITE. I think we can all agree that it's nice to see a relatively new editor not just assume that every WP:SHORTCUT is an invocation of authoritative policy. It's probably why someone went to all the trouble to write WP:NOTPOLICY. That said, Papaursa speaks much wisdom here; notability essays "may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion". Whether or not they should be used as the precipitating reason for the actual nomination...that's likely where my more exclusionist friends and I would agree to disagree. Buddy23Lee (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to inform, not bite. I'm happy to see new editors. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:MMABIO is an essay as well, but your point is well taken. I'd assume the governing policies here are the GNG and WP:BASIC. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only 2 professional MMA fights, neither of them top tier, he fails to meet WP:NMMA. Winning a regional amateur MMA title does not show notability. There's also nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE and he lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend that he does meet "significant" coverage as defined by the GNG. Still, even if you disagree with that, this article is a BLP, thus more specifically subject to the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (people) which clearly states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" as I'd stated above. So although he might not meet any of the very high standards of presumptive notability set in the myriad of notability essays, he unquestionably meets the guideline's presumption. His notability is threefold: as an instructor, a martial artist, and, to a lesser extent, an MMA fighter. There are citations substantiating all three. Are they perfect? No. Do they rise to the basic standards set by notability guidelines? Absolutely. Buddy23Lee (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you said earlier, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see the significant independent coverage you're claiming nor do I see how you can dismiss GNG as not being relevant. Here are my comments on the article's references:

1. post fight interview after winning local amateur MMA title (arguably routine)

2. list of results at local amateur MMA event (not significant)

3. list of results from minor event with grandiose name (e.g., there were a combined total of 5 adult male BJJ black belts competing in the 4 divisions) (not significant)

4. list of results from local grappling event (not significant)

5. his bio from his school (not independent or significant)

6. one line passing mention by one of his students (not independent or significant)

7. list of his MMA fight record (not significant)

Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed my friend, said respectfully, this is perhaps a classic 'inclusionist vs exclusionist' debate. I too could go through the present sources line-for-line as well, arguing for their particular significance, but I think that would only serve to show how far our opinions differ from one another. What I will say is that while the GNG is certainly not irrelevant, there is another guideline made specifically for people. The Wikipedia:Notability (people), as I've highlighted numerous times now. Given that this article is a BLP, I believe it to be more germane to this discussion. In it there is a basic criteria which this article meets. Now, I will concede that this article likely does not meet the very high standards of presumptive notability listed in some of the above notability essays, but it doesn't have to. Again, I respect your rigorous personal standards for what you consider a "significant" source, but once an article meets at least the basic criteria as listed in the relevant policy or guideline (and it may qualify under one of the notability essays as well), your opinion regarding what is and isn't significant is beside the point. Buddy23Lee (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neither his MMA career or his martial arts career seem to be substantial enough to make an argument for notability at this stage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:44, 26 December 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon chaos black[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested PROD. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No reliable sources per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to prove notability under wp:gng.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as prior users, no reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Josh3580_talk/hist 18:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although it's perhaps the most notable Pokemon hack out there (I have a GBA cart with it on), it still doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. [2] is literally the only thing out there that might even come close to a WP:RS with in-depth coverage, and its reliability is definitely undetermined at best. The article is terribly written to boot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was copypasted from Wikia and should've stayed there. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as noted above, and as failing the Wikipedia:Pokémon test. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. Related AfD: Pokemon Quartz. czar ♔ 23:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on delete per above as non-notable ROM hack. Ansh6 6 6 00:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable unofficial game trying to cash in on notable IP. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is getting snowballed. I agree with people prior - there are three sources, all from Wikia, which is not notable or necessarily reliable. And the coherency of the page is terrible at best. If it's going to be kept it needs a rewrite Nezzy ^{(Talk)｜(Editor contributions)} 20:41, 21 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imani Lee[edit]

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

Has tried many combat sports, but doesn't meet any of the notability standards. He had one kickboxing victory (which doesn't meet WP:KICK), one top tier MMA fight (which doesn't meet WP:NMMA), nothing in his boxing record shows he meets WP:NBOX, and he was released from his WWE developmental contract after a few months.Mdtemp (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom--he doesn't meet the notability criteria for any of the combat sports he tried. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (self-close per WP:NACD) (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boaz Huss[edit]

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

Currently fails all registers of WP:SCHOLAR notability, PROD removed czar ♔ 16:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I don't see how the few new secondary refs show Huss's "significant impact" per any measure of PROF#1, but I also trust Yoninah's background on this topic enough to see little value in carrying this AfD to term. Thanks, all czar ♔ 03:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar ♔ 16:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. czar ♔ 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes #1. I don't understand this AFD at all. Boaz Huss is widely quoted and cited in contemporary Kabbalah literature; just look at Google Scholar for citations. I filled in all the references on the article. Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a few articles with single-digit citations each (most influential: 22) usually doesn't count as being cited "widely", but I don't have a frame of reference for the field. I'll take a look at the refs added later tonight. czar ♔ 00:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep As per Yoninah. Clearly passes WP:PROF .Subject is a Professor and the Chair of a department in Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and is noted academic in Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 19 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Robbins[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight and WP:GNG with no significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA and the only source is a link to his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 02:12, 24 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nissen Osterneck[edit]

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

MMA fighter who lost both his top tier fights and fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet either WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:15, 24 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Gibson[edit]

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

Retired MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight.Mdtemp (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article about an MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 04:12, 24 December 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. If anyone wants to merge some of the content from behind the redirect, they can get it out of the history. Daniel (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thesurvivor2299.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A hoax website about the Fallout 4 video game. In December 2013, the article was deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thesurvivor2299.com. As indicated in a subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 10, the website has subsequently received media coverage for being a hoax. The article is remanded to a new deletion discussion to determine whether there are (still) reasons to delete it. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 14:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the closer of the previous AfD, I have abstained from comment at the DRV and will abstain from the AfD2 also, but I agree that relisting is an acceptable resolution. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The media coverage in question is not documented in the article, and without that this article is little more than fan hyperbole. It's a mess in its current state, and is flagged for multiple issues. It should be deleted, and recreated again only if its re-created version is significantly more broad in its coverage. Given the widespread reporting on the website there's notability here, but the article needs to at least have encyclopedic content to stand on its own legs. CR4ZE (t) 14:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a "delete or at best merge" stance in the previous AfD and endorsed the DR, but I will place myself as neutral/merge at this point (but certainly rewrite). I realize GNG can be interpreted in slightly different ways. As I said in DR, there are many reliable WP:VG/RS sources covering the website, there is no denying that. But my argument has been and is that they are not in-depth as GNG requires. They are a single news event briefly covered by specialized (video gaming) media. The issue is that the entire coverage rests on the same material and is pretty much the same between the sources. The hoax does not appear in mainstream media, nor does the specialized media place it in context of cultural significance. I don't consider the sheer volume of sources to be the threshold for GNG, rather their in-depth quality, but I will concede that multitude of sources can also be considered a valid reasoning. If the content is to be preserved, I still maintain merging to Fallout 4 or some list of hoaxes is the preferred route. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and~~ redirect to Fallout 4 or Fallout (series) per that AfD. Website has slim notability for being a hoax created by and for fans of the video game. Sources cover it entirely in that context. It warrants only a mention there at this point, but has been covered enough to expect that someone might come here looking for it. Ivanvector (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Ivanvector Kristjan Wager (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly detailed trivia. Single-event hoax, not particularly notable even in the context of the game. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Fallout 4/Fallout (series) AfD that I mentioned above has concluded with a consensus that the game is not notable enough for its own article, and Fallout 4 has been redirected. Since this is a hoax about the game which is currently non-notable, the hoax is certainly not. There is already a brief mention about this hoax website in the Fallout 4 section of the merged article, which repeats everything from this page which is in any way useful, so Thesurvivor2299.com is now redundant. Ivanvector (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, how many times are you going to play this game? PROTIP: use rewrite and update tags, and post on a talk page. --Niemti (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because tags always have a productive result? Please. If you don't have anything useful to say then just don't. Яehevkor ✉ 23:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fallout (series). The hoax is only notable in relation to the series, and the Fallout series page already says what needs to be said about. Novusuna ^talk 23:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallout (series) or delete. There are many hoaxes on the internet, and this is one of them. Wikipedia does not exist to catalog every hoax or website. This is a minor footnote in the history of Fallout, and to assign any kind of notability to it is, at this point, WP:RECENTISM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to series article. If redirected it should be protected to prevent re-creation. Since the site was revealed to be unauthorized fan goofing around it's actually even less notable than last time it was deleted a week ago. The site is now gone, so it isn't going to pick up any new notability either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:21, 20 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scubaprobe[edit]

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

Advertisement for a non-notable microscopy product. Kolbasz (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not an advertisement it's a technique. Sounds interesting but totally unsourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- The few search results you get on it suggest that it's the name of a product, not a technique. And the article even has wording like "our devices are compatible with all existing commercial instruments" (emphasis added). Kolbasz (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To anybody with a knowledge of the subject the technique is interesting. But the article is still unsourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. The current article wording also strongly suggests a copyvio. There might be a case for an article on the technique, if it proves notable, but it would have a different title and reuse very little of the existing content, which is all about the product. -- 101.119.14.157 (talk) 01:21, 19 December 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 Robinsons Malls. There is consensus that the article can not exist as a standalone, and the best solution per WP:ATD is to redirect. The info can be eventually merged by someone. Other articles have never been formally nominated.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsons Place Malolos[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced information, with only one source being a newspaper article. Likewise a good example of "wikipedia is not a directory" since article is mostly promotional and just lists down tenants. GrayFullbuster (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional- I think the following articles should also be considered for deletion as well:
Robinsons Place Palawan
Robinsons Place Dasmariñas
Robinsons Place Bacolod
Robinsons Magnolia
Robinsons Place Manila
and all other Robinsons and SM Supermall articles which are like the nominated article. GrayFullbuster (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp:GNG and IS a definite example of "wikipedia is not a directory".--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to the relevant parent articles (i.e. a list of Robinsons Malls or a list of SM Malls, if they exist, or to our articles on Robinsons Malls and SM Malls). According to WP:LOCAL (not a policy or guideline, but nevertheless relevant to this article), places of local interests can have an article if they have received enough coverage. However, it seems that, at present, none of the malls listed here have received coverage (I need to get this out of the way first. I'm currently a student at UP Manila, so I frequent Robinsons Place Manila all the time, but this does not affect my !vote on this AfD; instead, I !voted based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines). Of course, systemic bias could come into play here, especially for the malls outside Metro Manila, but it cannot be denied that these malls, although they frequently hold events from time to time, have not received enough coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:24, 19 December 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. Consensus is that we probably should have an article about this, but that the current content is so deficient (unverifiable, original research, etc.) that it needs to be blown up. All are free to recreate a policy-compliant list and to userfy the former content to aid in this. Sandstein 10:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of royal houses[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as lacking sources since January and as containing original research since April, but no effort seems to have been made to do anything about these issues. It does have a very very few references but lacks inline citations for almost every entry. As far as reigning monarchs go, it seems to be fairly accurate, but moves into a fantasy world of alternate reality for many of its entries, just for instance it names Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Normandy in Northern France! on the basis, presumably of some hundreds and hundreds of years old historical claim, which however is not referenced at all. Then heads of families that were deposed from thrones a hundred years ago or more are named as "King", there are many examples of this,just at the top of the page we are told there are Kings of Albania and there is an Emperor of Austria, of course there have not been such titles for many years,it names many like that. It could well be contentious to some citizens of republics to see their country named as having a monarch, besides which it is a mess of original research and unsourced statements. I think WP would be better off without this article.Smeat75 (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Relisted 13:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article indeed lacks sources, however it could be improved, rather than deleted. Its intention was to list all monarchs from all periods, not just the current ones, so that is why Albanian and Austrian are royal houses are also listed. FkpCascais (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have huge, huge problems with this article, and have tried to correct errors on numerous occasions, but they have been reverted by User:Director on numerous occasions.

To start: i.Several of the entries are listed belonging to Royal Houses and they have been given the wrong name. For example; the Royal House of Belgium has been the 'House of Belgium' since 1921; not 'House of Wettin' (which was the former House designation), the Royal House of the Netherlands is simply the 'House of Orange-Nassau' (and it has been ever since 1908; via decree of Queen Wilhelmina, despite the fathers of the current and last-but-one Queens not coming from this house.) The grand ducal house of the Netherlands is listed as 'Bourbon, Parma line, Nassau-Weilburg sub line'; yet Grand Duke Jean changed the name of the House from 'Bourbon-Parma' to 'Nassau' (although the House does indeed descend agnatically from the House of Bourbon Parma) in 1986 in retaliation for the Head of the House of Bourbon-Parma; Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma, ruling the marriage of Jean's son, the present Grand Duke Henri, as unequal and non-dynastic. The name now borne by the grand-ducal House is 'Luxembourg-Nassau', by grand-ducal decree. See here: http://www.monarchie.lu/fr/monarchie/droits-de-succession/annexe-au-communique-du-20062011.pdf Likewise, the House name given for the defunct throne of the Empire of Brazil is also wrong.

ii.There are several entries where claimants are given, but the family in question is extinct and no current pretender exists. There are also several entries where the House given is listed as 'extinct'-well; if the House is extinct, then there is no claimant; therefore why is it being listed? Likewise; there is no current pretender to the throne of Poland, nor is there for any of the various empires and kingdom that ruled over Haiti. Also, several pretenders for the (elective) throne of Poland are given, but; as Poland was an elective monarchy, none of these people would have any claim to the throne were the Polish monarchy restored.

iii.There are several entries where the 'pretender' given is not a pretender at all. For example, Amadeo, Duke of Savoy (the Head of the Aosta branch of the House of Savoy and rival to the headship of the entire house.), is listed as the pretender to the throne of Croatia. But not only did Amadeo's father Aimone relinquish any claims to the Kingship of Croatia in 1943 (which at any rate was an Axis puppet state and was ephemeral at best); neither Amadeo nor his father (nor anyone else for that matter) have ever considered him to be the 'pretender' to the defunct throne of Croatia. Similarly, Queen Margarethe II of Denmark was listed as the 'pretender' for Iceland; yet Queen Margarethe's grandfather King Christian X acknowledged the loss of his Icelandic throne (which at any rate was decided by plebiscite anyway) and no claims to the throne of Iceland have been made by any of his successors. Like with Elizabeth II and the loss of some of her thrones in the Commonwealth, King Christian X made no claim to or even lamented the loss of his Icelandic throne: he sent a congratulatory telegram to the Icelandic people, and the arms of Iceland were removed from the Royal arms of Denmark by his son Frederik IX in 1947. It could be argued that 'yes; but someone could view them as pretenders; it can be a claim made on their behalf' -but the monarchist movement in both countries is non-existent, and in both cases the loss of the throne was legally acknowledged, both by the state and by the Royal House.

iv. Several entries are given for entities that had no throne in the first place. For example, the various colonial possessions of Spain (the Viceroyalties) are listed; but these were only ever colonies of Spain rather than independent states in their own right that shared a monarch with Spain. Same as regards the thirteen colonies that later founded the U.S.A.: these were colonies rather than independent monarchies with their own throne. A colony is just an overseas territory of another country, not a sovereign state in its own right.

v.Several entries give the pretender to an extinct throne titles that they do not pretend to. Yes; there have been several deposed monarchs (who have thus become pretenders) who have continued to use the title they used as monarch (ex-Kings Simeon II of Bulgaria, Constantine II of Greece and Michael I of Romania are good examples); but this is common and standard diplomatic practice: a deposed monarch is allowed to use the title they used during their reign as a courtesy title; but this courtesy is not extended to their heirs (for example, when the former King Peter II of Yugoslavia died, his son did not proclaim himself 'King Alexander II of Yugoslavia' but simply used the title of Crown Prince that he had been entitled legally for a week after his birth.) There are examples of Heads of former royal houses using Monarchical titles, for example Crown Prince Leka, son of Zog I of Albania; declared himself 'King of the Albanians', but this practice is rare. Second to this; after it becomes impossible for a pretender to use a courtesy title (because they have been born after the abolition of the monarchy); the Pretender will use a title that shows they are Head of the Royal House; without using a title they are not qualified to use. Thus; for example, Georg Friedrich; Head of the Prussian Royal House is styled simply 'Prince of Prussia', and not 'Emperor Georg Friedrich I', as listed here.

In short, the whole article is misleading, not to mention the vast majority of it is WP:OR. For example, Prince Leka of Albania has never used an ordinal or claimed to be 'King of the Albanians', Likewise (as aforementioned) for Franz, Duke of Bavaria and Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia who have only ever used those titles. While there are some heads of former royal houses who do use the monarchical titles used by their ancestors (for example, Carlos, Duke of Parma or Andreas, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, this is the exception rather than the rule. Calling pretenders by titles and or ordinals they do not use is not only misleading, it's confusing and original research to boot.

Another massive; massive reason why it's not a good idea to use monarchical names for pretenders, heirs; or people who 'would be King or Queen if the monarchy still existed is that monarchs on their accession are not forced to use their first name as their regnal name. For example, George VI of the United Kingdom was christened Albert, but he used one of his middle names for his regnal name. Similarly, his grandfather; Edward VII; was also christened Albert, but used his middle name as his regnal name.King George I of Greece was born Prince Vilhelm of Denmark and George was one of his middle names, and so on.

And more to the point; what about someone like Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia? Would he be Georg Friedrich I, German Emperor and King of Prussia? Or maybe Friedrich IV; German Emperor and King of Prussia? Or maybe even Georg I, German Emperor? There are no rules in any monarchy which dictate what name the monarch has to use on their accession to the throne.

Also; what about monarchs who have adopted regnal names that are not one of their given names? King Haakon VII of Norway was born Prince Carl of Denmark and did not adopt the name Haakon until he became King of Norway in 1905 (in reference to the medieval kings of Norway who bore that name) and it was not amongst the names he was given when he was christened. Likewise; the short-reigning King Mindaugas II of Lithuania did not have that name amongst his given names; and neither did Tomislav II of Croatia.

Likewise; it would not be right to apply numbers after the names of would-be monarchs; because monarchical ordinals do not always follow logical patterns -for example; there's only ever been one Queen Elizabeth of Australia (the present one), but the present Queen is titled Elizabeth II of Australia. Likewise; there have only been seven kings of Sweden called Carl (rather than sixteen), but the present King of Sweden is called Carl XVI Gustaf. (because King Carl IX of Sweden adopted that number based on a mythical history of Sweden written by Johannes Magnus; seven of the Kings named Carl prior to Carl IX did not actually exist, and Kings Carl VIII and Carl VII were so numbered retroactively), and there are other examples as well. For all these reasons; putting someone like Franz, Duke of Bavaria as 'King Franz I' would be both WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL because we cannot predict what regnal name these would-be monarchs would use should they regain the throne.

Take Elizabeth II. Her full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. So; on her accession, she could have called herself Alexandra I. Or she could have called herself Mary III. Or she could have adopted a name totally at random that was not one of her given names; so she could very well have called herself Victoria II if she wanted. She could have decided to use whatever number after her name if she wanted; because the title of the monarch is part of the royal prerogative. It the purpose of wikipedia to present facts; not show people using titles they do not use and regnal names and titles they may well not use should they be lucky enough to regain their ancestor's throne. You can't just make stuff up and guess what they might be called if they were on the throne; because making stuff up and putting it on wikipedia is the very definition of what WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is.

Lastly; the 'title rank' is whatever title rank the heir/pretender/monarch in exile actually uses. So Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia is merely 'Prince of Prussia'; not 'German Emperor and King of Prussia etc.', because he doesn't use those titles; and he doesn't use a monarchical ordinal. Same goes for Franz, Duke of Bavaria; his title rank is 'Duke', not 'King', because he's never used the title King. Ever. Neither has anyone on their behalf.

Sorry that's a bit long winded, but the whole business with the page irks me somewhat.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most or all of what JWULTRABLIZZARD has said, but is there any reason why WP should not have an article giving a list of royal houses? ----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments JWULTRABLIZZARD presented here should be copied to the article talk page, and the editors opposing this should present their arguments there. FkpCascais (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a comment on the article talk page: "It would imho improve if the focus was on extant Royal houses and leave out the extinct ones" and "It should also refrain from calling people King or Emperor if they are not" It is silly enough to try to decide who would be the ruler of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in the wildly unlikely event that that monarchy is ever restored, but when you move into such realms of pure imagination as "Queen Elizabeth II is pretender to Florida" and some of that other stuff, it is evident that what is going on here is just some sort of parlour game and that is why it would be better deleted, imo, and start afresh with "List of extant royal houses".Smeat75 (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh.. Just close this and discuss your proposals on talk. Please read the relevant policy before posting frivolous AfDs.. 212.15.182.119 (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, original research. Better to place royal houses in categories. DrKiernan (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless totally rewritten. Currently a mass of original research, misinformation, and bad presentation, it's going to require massive reconstruction; whether that's better done by nuking it, or if someone will step up and fix it, is not certain. The above criticisms are valid: I'd emphasise the non-standard names for royal houses, the very limited list of houses, and the inclusion of pretenders. Royal houses are an important part of history and a legitimate encyclopedic topic, and a list of them could be excellent Wikipedia content. What we should have is either a list of countries/kingdoms/monarchies and under each a list of royal houses with dates, or else a list of royal houses and under each house a list of the kingdoms they ruled (since some, like the Bourbons and Stuarts) ruled multiple kingdoms). Ideally, someone will transform this, but if consensus for change can't be achieved I don't see any value in keeping this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify for the moment, but this title shouldn't be a redlink. It's quite plausible that someone would type this into the search box, and Wikipedia should clearly have a list of royal houses. We don't have an obvious redirect target. With all due respect for DrKiernan, "better to place royal houses in categories" is a line of argument that's contrary to WP:CLN. Categories and lists can and should co-exist. Lists provide functionality that categories cannot, in that you can watchlist a list or make it sortable, and because encyclopaedia users (as opposed to editors) often find lists easier to use than categories. And with all due respect for Colapeninsula, even when an article's current content is unsatisfactory, as long as Wikipedia ought to have an entry with this title, we shouldn't delete it entirely. The nominator raises a number of very legitimate concerns with the list as currently written, and I would generally agree with those concerns. But I would certainly not object to sourced additions to this list, so what we should do is reduce it to a stub to which sourced additions can be made.—S Marshall T/C 14:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This unencyclopedic mass of original research about some of the pretenders belongs on some fantasy alternate-history website . It has proven to be unmanageable due to insistence of hobbyists about keeping in it unverifiable and often untrue statements about persons being "pretenders" to nonexistent thrones based on their descent from deposed monarchs. I have no objection to a different article being created which lists present-day royal houses and another which those which ruled at sometime in the past. It would be easier to start over with those two articles strictly limited to houses meeting those two criteria, than to deal with hobbyists who insist in the once and future royal house "pretending" to titles which the persons in question do not actually claim. and giving them original research names they might not even use if the country suddenly asked them to come and be king. Edison (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this article is usefull (per S Marshall comment) and should list the territories and the noble families that ruled those territories. The "pretender" part is what is causing problems here and could be simply eliminated. FkpCascais (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already !voted above. I wanted to come back to this AfD because I'm quite concerned about @Edison:'s !vote, which I think is misguided. I think it's absolutely vital that we never delete material because of user conduct issues. If we ever do begin to delete material because user conduct issues make them hard to maintain, then we'll be creating an incentive for some users to vandalise articles that they want to get rid of, and we'll be giving a further incentive to sockpuppetry as well.—S Marshall T/C 12:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is not "user conduct" as if I wanted to delete it because someone was vandalizing it or edit warring and it was "hard to maintain" . The first two sentences of this article demonstrate that it is designed and intended to include a blend of actual present ruling houses and wanna-be "pretending" former ruling houses. That is a flaw in the basic purpose of the article. Edison (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's certainly a problem with the article. Does it mean List of royal houses should be a redlink?—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reason that "it is designed and intended to include a blend of actual present ruling houses and wanna-be 'pretending' former ruling houses" is because that is the way that information on such families is normally published by reliable sources, such as Burke's Peerage and the Almanach de Gotha. It is standard in the literature (as well as by ruling dynasties such as those which reign over the Commonwealth Realms, Scandinavia and Benelux) to accord deposed dynasties tradtional titles of pretence and to provide information about them in the same texts and formats as for reigning houses. What is being sought here is a novel usage of deviating from the way dynasties have been classified for centuries in favor of creating a one-off, egalitarian distinction in Wikipedia. But it's not Wikipedia's purpose or practice to demote persons and families in ways contrary to prevalent usage in the texts which most reliably and consistently report their status and membership. FactStraight (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show me one source that says Francis II is the pretender to the throne of Ireland or Elizabeth II is the pretender to the throne of East Florida. There is a perfectly adequate list of real houses at Royal house. We do not need a second page of invented fantasy. DrKiernan (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your real reason for wanting to delete this article is that it is duplicative, then a merge request would have sufficed. Wikipedia reports reliably sourced, notable information. In many of the same sources (you know them as well as I do) which cover reigning dynasties, you will find what you label "invented fantasy" described right alongside them and without any distinction other than the one that matters: the date of deposition. Articles don't deserve to be deleted because they are vandalized: If there are over-eager Wikipedia contributors who add in "pretenders" to Ireland or East Florida why not just delete those assertions as unsourced? FactStraight (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entire thing is unsourced and WP:OR, and much of it is outright wrong. Removing the out-of-policy pieces wouldn't even leave a stub behind. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there are arguments made to Keep here, I find them unconvincing; one saying that headmasters of prominent schools are "inherently notable" without backing that up, and another who references the subject's inclusion in directories including Who's Who and Debrett's. I find neither argument convincing, especially given that this is an unsourced BLP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Franklin (headmaster)[edit]

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

Locally known headteacher. No significant coverage of the subject and offices held to date do not qualify the subject as notable Flaming Ferrari (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatantly fails WP:BIO. headmasters are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Although the school is clearly notable, that notability is not automatically inherited by the headmaster. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. Headmasters of prestigious public schools (i.e. independent schools), such as Christ's Hospital and indeed Ardingly College are somewhat notable. The idea that this is "only locally so" is ridiculous, and demonstrates a deeply profound misunderstanding of the English public school system. He has an entry in Who's Who here and in Debrett's People of Today [3], either of which would normally indicate coverage and therefore notability. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Headmasters of prominent schools are inherently notable. Also in directories above. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

"Headmasters of prominent schools are inherently notable" please refer to the actual guideline which says this. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with respect to Who's Who and Debrett's People of Today, these publications also list QCs, circuit judges, company directors and other such persons who as a general rule of thumb would not be considered "inherently notable", so merely being listed in one of these publications (or both) does not necessarily mean that the subject should warrant an article. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Further to this, I believe that the subjects of entries in Who's Who provide the text for their entry, so this wouldn't quality as a high-quality independent source anyway. Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply evidence for this claim? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Sure - the publisher's website states that this is the case: [4] ("What makes Who's Who unique is that each biographee provides the details for their entry, and many include contact details"). It's also stated that there's fact checking, but that "The information contained in a Who’s Who entry is essentially autobiographical" [5] Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source, the material provided may be edited by the journal. However, inclusion is by invitation only and is not, like Marquis Who's Who, open to virtually everybody. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete This is currently an unreferenced BLP (the only reference is to a dead link which appears to have once been an edition of the school newsletter), and no independent references to support the assertions that Mr Franklin meets WP:BIO have been provided. As such, notability isn't currently established, and as this is a BLP we should delete the article. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 24 December 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_Konami_games#1990-1999. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thrill Drive[edit]

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

Non-notable Video game, written with a promotional tone. I would go for A7, but I am unsure whether it falls under this criteria --Mdann52talk to me! 11:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC):Also nominating the following articles, as the whole series of articles seems to lack sourcing:[reply]

Keep, don't see any reson to delete. Written okay. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 11:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the nominator has clearly expressed N and even A7 as deletion reasons. How the pages are written should not be an issue unless we discuss merging/splitting/listifying/etc. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The pages actually need a lot of work, Nintendofan, but that's besides the point in this discussion. --Soetermans. T / C 11:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this is so much promotional as written by a fan, and one who has very little command of English.TheLongTone (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And see the recently created F1 Super Lap, another in the series.TheLongTone (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I cannot any find that would satisfy GNG and none are included in articles (all are half-promotional videos) or presented for GNG purposes. Hits in reliable sources are just catalog entries with no commentary and others are mostly fan sites and forums. There are some passing mentions, such as being inspirational for other games, but nothing in-depth. I realize the games are quite old, so there might be defunct and print sources, but I'm not too sure there are. Article quality is irrelevant in determining topic's suitability for GNG. A notable topic can certainly be described from a fan's perspective and we should aim to correct that, but that's not a reason to delete -- failing N is. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hellknowz. Googling didn't bring up any reliable source on this game. --Soetermans. T / C 11:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's something's good and reliable, but I'd never play this game. Although, some of those Wikipedia users that they don't know about this game, it was like having childhood years before and now, it's still investigating about those 3 arcade driving games similarly. But don't delete, as of the update and I'll gonna find pictures on the infobox to those 3 games there. So, I would wait or let them wait for the new announcement. Thank you! --The Game Expert (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nostalgia is not something we go by in inclusion criteria. If anything, "those" Wikipedia users have an unbiased view. I'm happy to change my argument to "keep" if you can find WP:GNG-suitable sources for this. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. Maybe someone could find more by its Japanese name? There may be print sources since this was more of a 90s game, but I can't find them. (Please ping me if you do, though.) czar ♔ 15:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all to List of Konami games with ((R to list entry)) because redirects are cheap and these are ostensibly search terms, even if the topic isn't notable enough for an entry. czar ♔ 15:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Daniel (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huai Kha Yung Railway bridge[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in for these unnamed railway bridges which cross canals, streams or minor rivers. (All of these articles are descriptively named after the bodies of water the bridges cross.) Brief Google searches didn't suggest that there would be any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Articles are cited to photos on a railway enthusiast website/forum, which is not a reliable source. Related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge near Prachantakham railway station. Paul_012 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Badly written too, very short. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very badly written and provides no useful information. Jeffrd10 13:28, 18 December 2013‎
Delete all: Being poorly written is not criteria for deletion, that's easily fixed. However, none of these bridges appear to be notable other than locally, per comments above. Even a mention at State Railway of Thailand or on the associated (minor) rivers isn't really warranted here. Ivanvector (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 18 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Chevrolet[edit]

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

Reason: this is an extremely commonplace automobile dealership that does not meet WP's notability guidelines for a business. Moreover, this article for a single location operation that is owned by a larger corporation. It is an attempt at using WP for free advertising. CZmarlin (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. I agree with the nominator. There's nothing in the article, or that I could find through the usual sources, to indicate that this is more than a run of the mill local dealership--no indication of a landmark building, unusually large volume, famous advertising, etc. The parent company may be notable (although the current version of that article is kind of spammy) but this dealership isn't, as far as I can tell. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article on unremarkable auto dealer. Article on parent company is also extremely questionable. Coretheapple (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gheorghe Caranda[edit]

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

Rejected PROD. Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL: the only claim to notability is "first Romanian to die in an aircraft accident", which is not an establishment of notability. Fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:NPERSON. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable firsts are generally regarded as notable. The first person to die in an aircraft accident in a particular country is therefore notable, especially if it was in the early years of aviation (the first death in a powered aircraft crash anywhere in the world was only four years earlier). Not a memorial in the slightest, simply a notable first. We have many articles on notable firsts, for the simple reason that they're notable. Just as an example, why is the first American soldier killed in World War I notable? He was just an ordinary private with no achievements whatsoever except being unlucky. Probably distinctly less notable than an early aviation pioneer. Yet I can imagine the flood of objections if you tried to get the article deleted. Why? Because his death was notable as a first and he came from a major English-speaking country. Yet Wikipedia is not meant to discriminate against non-English-speaking countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is being the first Romanian killed in an aircraft crash notable? At the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF, do we have an article on the first Israeli killed in an aircraft crash? The first Portuguese? Tanzanian? His only claim to notability is having been killed in an aircrash, and that is WP:ONEEVENT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could equally say we don't have articles on the first people of other nationalities killed yet. Doesn't mean they're not notable. Doesn't mean nobody will write articles on them. We have many, many articles on notable firsts - are you, on the basis of this nomination, going to nominate them all for deletion because that's all they're notable for? Presumably you will now nominate Joseph William Guyton, an utterly insignificant individual, for deletion. Or is being the first American killed in a single war out of many more significant than being the first Romanian ever killed in an aircrash? Just one example of many, as I said. WP:OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant. We have articles because being the first person to do something significant or have something significant happen to you is inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, however I don't believe 'first Fooian killed in an aircraft accident' confers that inherent notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Being killed in an accident is not an achievement. Just because we have other articles that need deleting is no reason to keep this one. This is no more notable that the first Romanian killed in a car accident, the first Romanian killed in a bathtub accident, the first Romanian killed in a tennis accident, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1912 in aviation (or it could be used to expand Aviation in Romania with a proper timeline). It's a minor footnote in Romanian aviation, but first people killed in various subcategories are included in such timelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't read Romanian and am relying on Google Translate here, but it seems that Lt. Caranda was regarded as a hero at the time of his death, both for being an aviation pioneer and maybe entertainer, and for being the first casualty of aviation in Romania. There is a street named after him in Bucharest, the Romanian capital, and maybe a statue there as well (can't confirm via Translate), and maybe also a school. These, plus nontrivial coverage in multiple sources on the centenary of his death, suggests lasting notability. Ivanvector (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Ivanvector's findings suggest there to be some genuine notability here, but I'd like to see a little more. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added one book source. It seems to me that Caranda was notable not just as the first person to die in an airplane from Romania, but he was a member of a pioneering pilot school in Bucharest associated with other famous aviators. So he wasn't just a minor footnote, but rather appears to have been one of the key players in early Romanian aeronautics. Steven Walling • talk 20:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aviation in Romania.TheLongTone (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - aside from the traces of his memory today (street and obelisk), we have in-depth coverage indicating just how significant an event his death was.
As an aside, let me say I take a middle position regarding firsts. I don't think every first is notable - but a first that is also covered by reliable sources is. If the first air crash death from, say, Ghana or Cambodia or Slovenia wash't recorded, or if all we have is a name and a date, then I would say those individuals don't merit a separate article. Coverage of Caranda goes beyond that.
We do know the name of the first Romanian killed in World War I: lieutenant-colonel Gheorghe Poenaru-Bordea (soldier) (not to be confused with Gheorghe Poenaru-Bordea (archaeologist)), killed August 14, 1916. And there is a little coverage of him online. So an article waits to be started. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:57, 24 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Borlat[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no sources that satisfy the GNG which don't violate WP:ROUTINE or WP:GEOSCOPE. Ravenswing 03:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Hwy43 (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find anything that shows he meets GNG. And playing in the Swiss B league doesn't meet any criteria of NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. nn hockey player. Can be recreated when and if they become notable. Reso lute 15:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG now. Can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets criteria #3 of WP:NHOCKEY for having played 100 plus games in the National League B, which is the second highest professional league in Switzerland, and is analagous to playing in the Mestis or the HockeyAllsvenskan “or other such league”. Dolovis (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No the NLB would be the equivalent of playing in the leagues listed in #4. The NLB is in no way the equivalent of the Mestis of or HockeyAllsvenskan. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 24 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hélio Dipp[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and the article's only sources are to his fight record and his gym, so there's no independent coverage to meet GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - no indication of notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:NMMA or WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 December 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. Blaster's comment makes absolutely no sense. Daniel (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD (rapper)[edit]

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

Does not clarify reasons for notability and unable to find enough reliable source coverage to justify article. Please note Talk page comments from the contest of CSD which was originally on it [article has been deleted as A7 once before]. James of UR (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC, apparent autobiography. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP and WP:MUSIC. Autobiography, No proper citations. Not notable. Antideregister ● ✉ 20:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Made sourced. I'm on here to me. (What? | Changes to you.) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The two references do not seem to make him pass WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Toews[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no sources that satisfy the GNG which don't violate WP:ROUTINE or WP:GEOSCOPE. Has played most of his career in amateur senior leagues. Ravenswing 03:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Hwy43 (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY at all and the only references on the page are routine coverage. A quick search shows none that meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jesus Dolovis. You bruit the "played 100 games" argument of WP:NHOCKEY about like it is an impervious shield, then go and waste everyone's time creating articles on players that don't even meet that flimsy criteria? Routine coverage only, nn player. Reso lute 15:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – with respect to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT iVotes above, this subject meets WP:GNG with reliable and independent sources providing significant coverage including [6][7] which are included in the article and are in no way "rountine" as they cover the subject in significant detail. There are likely more to be found with a diligent search, but two is all that is needed to satisfy GNG. Dolovis (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the second one is actually in the definition of what a routine article is. Q&A sessions are listed as an example of routine. As for the first one it is an article about alumni, which are done about numerous alumni which makes it a routine news story. Routine doesn't just mean lack of detail, it means that it is done indiscriminately, as in it is done for people who aren't notable as well as notable. Not to mention its a local article about a local alumni which means it fails GEOSCOPE. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 24 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Costa (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights and lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. No indication he will move in from the edges of notability anytime soon.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since his last victory was in 2010 it's not likely he's going to get that third top tier fight he needs to meet WP:NMMA and he doesn't have the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep per WP:HEY, WP:GEOLAND, and WP:OUTCOMES. Great job of a rescue by Northamerica1000. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rogersville, Indiana[edit]

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

Article about a town that lacks any significance. Article cites no sources and has absolutely nothing written other than "Rogersville has a population of 7". Aclany (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a strong advocate of "sources precede the article", but let's give this more than 10 minutes to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - unincorporated part of a town, not a valid location for US Census measurements. Should this survive someone CSD'ing it, and no other show of notability I will change to a Delete--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no longer an empty article, meets criteria--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It exists as a populated place and likely has some obscure history, probably connected with late 19th/early 20th century railroads. There is a policy that applies to notability for geographic features, but I can never remember the name of it.- Mr X 03:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a policy, but an essay: WP:NGEO.- Mr X 03:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to qualify under WP:GEOLAND, but the article needs expanded to include more than just a pop of 7. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. May be historically notable (see http://www.hcgs.net/rogerscem.html). VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NTEMP; was a real community in the 19th century with its own post office 1849-1901. [8][9] --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. A legally-recognized place: [10]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As this is a verified populated place, it is considered notable under Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer (and by AfD precedent). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - passes WP:GEOLAND and WP:NTEMP, easily verifiable as being a proper town. Nominating an article for deletion 13 minutes after creation, when it's not pure vandalism, isn't the best form. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is creating a one sentence sub-stub - there are plenty of ways of making an article that is more than that - either by previewing or by starting on your userspace. The only reason I wouldn't have wp:PRODded that is wp:BITE. But as the article now stands, it's a clear Snow Keep. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but two wrongs don't make a right, and the user who created the article has far less experience than the nominator, who clearly failed to carry out WP:BEFORE. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:58, 19 December 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.