< 23 December	25 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Smith (director)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, but perhaps there is more out there that I'm not finding. SarahStierch (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Julian Smith is still not notable, as evidenced in the previous AfD. The references section for the article is filled with links from Twitter, YouTube, and his own site; these are not relevant secondary sources, and in my opinion, seeing only these links makes him reek of 'not-notable'. —Mono·nomic 02:39, 23 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, Courcelles 23:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The total lack of RS makes it clear Julian Smith is not notable. DocumentError (talk) 07:02, 25 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Lights[edit]

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

Obscure, non-charting release. Article should be deleted and the far more notable Diamond Lights (Glenn & Chris song) moved to the non-disambiguated title. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good find. I was astonished when I thought the Glenn and Chris song was up for deletion. --BDD (talk) 00:13, 20 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, Courcelles 23:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacks "its own notability... [demonstrated by] "...independent evidence." ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator that Diamond Lights (Glenn & Chris song) should be moved to this title if current article is deleted. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, entirely non-notableTheLongTone (talk) 11:30, 29 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. Courcelles 17:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Me Watching[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NALBUM. - Mr X 14:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is as the nominator says. I think the album's creator would probably fail the notability test as well. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:34, 24 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, Courcelles 23:38, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Home-based program[edit]

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

This "article" was nowhere close to being ready for articlespace when it was in AFC. The editor appears to have attempted to bypass AFC by copy/pasting from the AFC holding bin. It still appears to be non-compliant as an article as of yet. Needs significant work to meet our WP:MOS if it even can meet our basic standards ES &L 15:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with ES&L this article definitely need more work before going on the main space.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could the nominator please be more specific as to precisely what is wrong with this article. Could the problems be dealt with by editing and merging page histories? "Not ready" sounds like "imperfect". James500 (talk) 22:44, 9 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, SarahStierch (talk) 17:21, 17 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, Courcelles 23:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted as I don't see an actual policy-based rationale for deletion here; nothing mentioned as problems that can't be fixed by editing like the MOS. Courcelles 23:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article clearly needs clean-up but notability is clear and well established. Maybe it shouldn't have passed AFC, but using the AFC process is optional, and the reasons given are no reason to delete. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keepon grounds that no valid rationale for deletion has been offered. AfD isn't cleanup. James500 (talk) 05:39, 29 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) 00:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Saint Yves[edit]

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

Lack of notabilty: article was written with a number of blog, web-magazine (that doesn't seem to have an editorial staff or function) and a facebook source.
Unable to find reliable sources for her
It may just be early and in a bit of time when her career matures, it may be good to have an article about her then (per WP:ARTIST) CaroleHenson (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could only find one magazine [1], but, I can't find much else in regards to multiple reliable sources to pass GNG or ARTIST at this time. Perhaps in the future! SarahStierch (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly nothing in this article conforms to the requirements of WP:ARTIST --gilgongo (talk) 17:33, 28 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 delete per WP:CSD#G3 (blatant hoax). Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. DiBella[edit]

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

Not notable and inadequately sourced negative BLP. Dlohcierekim 21:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an attack page. User has already created attack pages on this subject in their own user space twice. The lone source in this article appears to be bogus, as both google and Asbury Press site searches fail to return an mention of the subject. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:54, 25 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Saniel[edit]

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

Prod challenged without rationale, concern was "football biography which fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG." C 679 20:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 20:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wouldn't appear to meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per above, standard non-notable footballer. Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 31 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Raya[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he plays for Blackburn Rovers who play in a fully pro league. While all this is true, it is also mute, as he has yet actually play for Rovers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 18:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 18:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 18:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – lack of sufficient notability due to absence of significant coverage. C 679 14:03, 31 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caiden Cowger[edit]

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

Cowger is a marginal radio show host whose comments about homosexuality in summer 2012 were picked up by a few news aggregators. Outside of that incident, there is no evidence that he meets WP:BIO and there don't seem to be enough non-primary sources to warrant an article for him. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 18:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable, non remarkable radio talk show host, he is evidently known for a single act. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is known for more than one single act. He has appeared on American Family Radio multiple times, and does receive a large audience. - DailyConservatism (talk 18:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A radio DJ broadcasting in Nowhere, West Virginia is not notable. He claims a per-show audience of 30K which is pretty paltry and, even that, may be inflated in the absence of independent verification. Many of the exuberant, promotional claims in this article like "the most listened to millennial political show in America" are sourced to websites affiliated with Cowger himself. The only RS' in the references are all the same wire report - or variations of the same wire report - from his 15 minutes in fame. In the future Cowger may meet notability requirements and this page could be recreated then but, at present, he is supremely not notable. DocumentError (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cowger is known for more than one single act. He has a talk show that discusses current events, has appeared on various radio networks such as American Family Radio, and has a large audience. He is also the founder of many widely used networks, and has interviewed multiple political personalities from the United States.
Keep - Cowger has been in the media more than just with that one incident. I included articles about him that were about other incidents. As for his ratings, they are verified. If you go to the sources presented in the document, they are correct. They are publicly accessible, but it is compiled in a document released by Cowger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyConservatism (talk • contribs) 07:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Comment: I have sorted the !votes chronologically and struck the two duplicate entries by the article's creator, an account where 19 of the 24 edits to date have been on this article or this AfD. Please only !vote once but feel free to add comments or expand on your rationale. - Dravecky (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just did a search on google for actual news hits, and the results were absolutely nothing, this guy is an absolute non event http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Caiden+Cowger%22+radio&hl=en-AU&gbv=2&prmd=ivnso&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=B1y-Uo3eGsiXkwXamIDYAQ&ved=0CAcQ_AU Whitewater111 (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, kid says something stupid on the radio, media is all over it for fifteen minutes, then moves onto the next fad. WP:ONEEVENT. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment If we are now going to be spewing personal opinions, Cowger's statements were correct according to the Bible. As for his "15 minuites of fame," Cowger is still on the radio, is still in the media (American Family Radio), is a published author, has interviewed multiple political personalities, is the founder of several news outlets, so please tell me again how he is just a "fad?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyConservatism (talk • contribs) 14:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) for details on how Wikipedia decides which biographies to include as notable. A few appearances on a syndicated radio show, talking to famous people on local radio, self-publishing a book, and starting a few websites is not sufficient. What you need is sustained in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources about his life and/or career, not just about one event that briefly pushed that person into the spotlight. Without such sources, notability for Wikipedia's purposes can't be proven. - Dravecky (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Lankiveil. Levdr1lp / talk 08:20, 31 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. Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. SarahStierch (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-tamper software[edit]

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

Poorly sourced; incoherent and incohesive; little value for readers. Perhaps not worth trying to salvage prior to a complete rewrite. Ringbang (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOTCLEANUP. Clearly a notable topic. We did and do have worse-quality articles hanging out in mainspace. It could use more concrete examples though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poor encyclopedic value, even if the article passes through an overhaul I think that its content is not appropriate for WP, I bet there are articles which are better suitable for such a content or part of it instead of this type of software having its own article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT//WP:Just unencyclopedic argument. This is clearly a legitimate academic (and practical) field of study in computer science/security as a simple search in GS shows [2]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the nom seems to suggest this is a case for WP:TNT, but I'm not entirely convinced. It is obviously a notable field, and the question is can it be salvaged and rewritten or is it better to be rewritten from the ground up. I tend to side with the salvage, and hence my !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although that was before User:Someone not using his real name endeavoured a vigorous revision spree. This article has been a spam magnet for a while; therefore, I nominated it with a WP:TNT philosophy since I didn't expect a timely rewrite. Even when spam isn't a problem, I favour deletion for articles that are worthless without a rewrite, because not only do they waste readers' time, they attract attention away from better resources due to Wikipedia's prominence in search results. Ringbang (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: after the revisions, do you still favour deletion, or are you withdrawing? Not pressuring for either, I was just unsure what your stance was after this past comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After some fact-checking with the references provided (save one that's paywalled), I think the article is now worth saving. I don't contest the notability of the topic, and the article is now in a decent position for further improvement—thanks to User:Someone not using his real name's efforts! Ringbang (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the original reasoning falls under WP:NOTCLEANUP more than not. Kudos to Someone for the revamp. Looking at the sources and beyond, I think the term itself is concrete and notable enough in the comp sci field to warrant an article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:06, 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. Courcelles 17:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cleveland[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The two sources in the article aren't independent of him and in any case don't provide significant coverage; I failed to find anything better. Sideways713 (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or a social network, this subject fails to establish notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Former small-market radio DJs who are now teaching high school are not notable absent something incredible. There's nothing incredible here. DocumentError (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local radio personality with no significant or reliably sourced evidence of notability. I also suspect but cannot prove WP:COI of some kind (coworker? wife? daughter? student?), as this article was its creator's only contribution to Wikipedia to date. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing notable about this individual at all. It's a CV. Self promotion. --gilgongo (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no evidence of notability online. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Levdr1lp / talk 08:27, 31 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. Article improved. Nomination withdrawn via Keep !vote by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 10:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Nasr[edit]

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

No assertion of notability Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - As per nom, I failed to find or trace any coverage on the subject. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all due respect to the nominator, the article asserts notability as a prominent Iranian playwright and gives a reference. There are plenty of other references readily available. The Reader's Encyclopedia of World Drama gives significant coverage of one of his plays. There is a six volume work called History of Civilizations of Central Asia, published by UNESCO. In the volume called Towards the Contemporary Period: From the Mid-nineteenth to the End of the Twentieth Century, he is described as "one of the founding fathers of modern Iranian theatre". He is described in the The World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre: Volume 5: Asia/Pacific. He is described as "The leading personality of the theatre in Iran during the Rida Shah period" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam: MAHK-MID. The History of Theater in Iran says that he was "hailed as the father of modern Iranian theater". I encourage withdrawal of this nomination. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - found an article on BBC Persian that says he's one of the founders of theatres in Iran. added to article. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been some good references added since the nomination, I was the original nominator. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 08:28, 25 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) 00:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xl dynamics[edit]

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

I couldn't find any sources on the web that establish WP:CORPDEPTH for this outsourcing company. The article itself makes no claim to notability either, nor does it have any sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A careful research brought not enough independent or thid-party coverage about the subject, article seems to be purely promotional. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Xumit posted the following to the talk page of this page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The article gives information about company, I am still gathering information about the company, so that it will look more informative than promotional." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xumit (talk • contribs)

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 Closure due to incorrect Article for Deletion nominee. NAC by Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jack Benjamin Somers[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER ...William 13:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - Article is prod'ed and the wrong namespace is being nominated. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:28, 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. Mkdw ^talk 02:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five major beauty pageants[edit]

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

Unsourced collection of content already covered in other articles, including Big Four international beauty pageants. It's superfluous and a violation of WP:NOR to create an article including a fifth pageant, and appears to have a promotional intent. JNW (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also List of major beauty pageant winners by year and List of major beauty pageant winners by country, more new articles with the same rationale of creating a 'big five'. JNW (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concurring fully with the reasoning of the nominator and JNW. Safiel (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page should not be deleted because it does not copy any information from other pages rather it gives additional information that other pages or article lack. This page summarizes the five pageants' result through tables and it gives history about the said pageants that other pages might have failed to give. This page is an all in one information, which I believe people will have a convenience in looking for the tallies. This page should not be deleted rather this should be improved. Thank you and I appreciate further improvements. I believe this page will soon be the most visited page in wikipedia in terms on pageant results Markimatix (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a fork of List of major beauty pageant winners by country, which should also be deleted for the same reasons mentioned by the nominator. I cannot find any reliable source that supports the claim that Miss Supranational is a pageant at the same level as the big four. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three for reasons given by nominator and others. Sideways713 (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article content is already covered in other article, there is no need for content fork, this article is not notable by its own. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicated content entirely unsourced Flat Out let's discuss it 07:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is qualified to be retained since Supranational is now considered a major beauty pageant. It even surpasses Miss International when it comes to number of entrants. Miss International 2010 holds the record of 70 entrants only the most number ever since it started and Miss Earth 2013 has its record of 88 entrants while in Miss Supranational 2013 already has 89. Miss Supranational surpasses Miss International and Miss Earth when it comes to number of entrants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.58.210 (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. The number of "entrants" to a pageant is irrelevant; what is required is evidence that independent reliable sources consider there to be "five major beauty pageants". That evidence is nonexistent. bd2412 T 16:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George F. Taylor[edit]

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

Very little evidence that this amateur historian is notable; independent coverage is limited to a 43-word newspaper obituary, and a passing mention here. As the article was written by a user banned for filling articles with fake content, original research and overinflating the importance of minor characters, I think deletion is the more pragmatic solution. bobrayner (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO, also I couldn't find any trace of coverage to sustain the maintainability of the subject's article into wikipedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources are found. He's not a BLP. The Times obituary isn't an obituary written by journalist, it's a death notice written by his family. Note that there was also a George Francis Taylor CBE (1903-1979) who was a banker-cum-SOE officer [3] Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article falsely claims that Taylor (1971) is "autoritative" on its subject, giving Kaizer as reference. Nothing of the kind is indicated eith by Taylor or Kaizer; Kaizer merely acknowledges that Taylor was the first to take a few photographs of previously unknown Roman temples. Taylor (1971) is only a notable source in being the first to document these temples (i.e, at the entries for those temples), NOT as a a general, authoritative source of anything.Arildnordby (talk) 15:11, 28 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 Organizational behavior. Courcelles 17:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organisational change[edit]

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

Multiple issues (e.g. Broken structure, absent in-text references, some self-promotion, strangely ego-centric {see the 'examples' section}) Andrew (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to organizational behavior (or maybe change management, although that is maybe a bit too specific). This article has to be rewritten, but maybe some of the material can be reused. Also redirect organizational change to the same target. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - As per above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Organizational behavior. It's a real thing, but this is not an encyclopædia article. The target is also not the best quality (like most of our business articles), but at least it tries to belong. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:13, 31 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 Liverpool Echo. Courcelles 17:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Daily Post & Echo[edit]

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

There are already separate articles for the Liverpool Daily Post and Liverpool Echo. There's no need for an article with a summary of both. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Liverpool Echo. This article predates the separate ones which originally redirected here. Later this article was split but unfortunately leaving three articles. The two individual articles are actively edited and the Liverpool Post has recently closed down. "Liverpool Daily Post & Echo" should be kept as a likely search term for the one-time company and there is no need to delete the history. Thincat (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As per above, this article is an unnecessary content fork. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:38, 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 delete. G4 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Maheshwari (actor)[edit]

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

Note the previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shantanu Maheshwari

Subject does not meet notability guidelines Flat Out let's discuss it 11:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable. Reliable sources mention his name. 1, 2 from the Times of India, 3, 4. Now, how many more are you looking for? Ethically ^(Yours) 13:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not now, even though he may be covered by third party sources, there is not enough content to be added to this article, also its related articles suffer from POV and OR, a problem which this article may experience, I suggest going through Article for Creation process. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, h is being source from reputable 3rd party sources, but I believe he does not meet Notability for Actors under Wikipedia's guidelines for Actors. He has not been nominated for an award or won anything. the references are few. Maybe in time. SefBau : msg 13:04, 25 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 nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Translations[edit]

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

declined prod. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article was prod'ed but no reason was given for its decline, subject fails MUSICBIO and no substantial coverage is found. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Plenty of references have now been added to easily fulfil the substantial coverage to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG and lots of other capital letters. And please link your internal shortcuts, so that we can read them quickly. The-Pope (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the fact that many of the cites mention the subject's obscurity, there are enough of them from reliable sources to pass the notability bar, for me. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I said when I deProded this article the subject is notable under various guises: as Machine Translations (the performance artist/band) there are some eight albums issued; as J Walker (the producer/engineer/mixer) he has worked on his own and other artists' albums; as Greg Walker (the composer) he has been nomination for national awards numerous times. I have supplied numerous reliable sources for these claims, some have page long descriptions of the artist's works by easily checkable online media.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly the nominator hasn't read the article and seen that the subject is notable. The article is well referenced as per User:Shaidar cuebiyar's preceding comments. Dan arndt (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the original article which was poorly sourced. It is now improved. LibStar (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I presume Libstar you're going to withdraw your nomination.... Dan arndt (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking pretty damn good now.Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRETTY not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my lazy wording. I meant it's well-referenced now.Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:34, 28 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. Wikipedia contributions are praiseworthy but are not a basis for a mainspace article. The IP's suggestion of a brief article pointing to the user page would not be acceptable either: the notability requirement still applies, and links from the main encyclopedia into user-space are discouraged, like cross-namespace redirects, because people (readers) walking round the building (encyclopedia) should not fall through into the pipework (project space). JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Sinclair Griffith[edit]

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

An autobiographical piece by an editor who, seemingly, feels his edits have bestowed notability upon his good self Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hopefully a misunderstanding. He can include this info on his user page if he so wishes. Not convinced about the notability either. I might be more impressed if he was a prolific author as a historian (either local or railway), writing books with original content, but not Wikipedia articles. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided and I defer to whatever a majority thinks; however, re Barney the barney barney's "Not convinced about the notability either", for notability how does this person compare to another Roger Griffith who has an article on him currently in Wikipedia, viz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Griffith (an American basketball man)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.42.142 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- that's classic WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Barney, you are absolutely correct. How RSG compares with that RG who is already in Wikipedia it TOTALLY irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the wiki page on RSG should go. I realize that and this is why I specifically didn't use that to argue - and indeed said I'm undecided and (not knowing much at all about Wikipedia processes am perfectly happy to follow the opinion of those who know much better. That said I still do just wonder how Roger S. Griffith's notability compares with the other RG's notability. I suspect the other RG's is greater but merely by hunch. As noted, I don't know much about WP and I haven't studied just how persons notability is assessed. Similar as Cruscoe1818 himself said, we Australians are far to modest to go writing wiki pages about ourselves ... but RSG is not an Australian. Forgive my naivety please as I'm just learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.170.169 (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is outrageous. The only sign of potential notability is the unsourced FSA Scot. Being a Wikipedia editor does not give one the right to publish an autobiography. Citing publications at Books LLC is a disguised form of WP:COPYWITHIN. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to indicate he meets any of the relevant notability guidelines, but even if he did WP:TNT would still apply. Sideways713 (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And clearly not a "misunderstanding", the long list of wiki articles is on the userpage & anybody with this number of articles clearly should know wp notability guidelines. Blatant self-promotion.TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reasons above. Agricola44 (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I can certainly appreciate the amount of work this editor has done for Wikipedia and Wikimedia, there is nothing I can find that shows that the article subject meets the notability guidelines. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As pe above, wikipedia is not a social networking, and this article seems to be a portfolio or profile to me. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't believe this was de-PRODded. --Randykitty (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello .. re "I can't believe this was de-PRODded", I happen to know some of the reasons why, should anyone wish to know (but they might not be entirely central to the matter of deleting the Roger Sinclair Griffith article). I do agree that RSG could instead stick all this on his user's page. I was rather hoping that he might say something himself re his own creation which is surely about to vanish in its present form (and likely, I think, in any form). I guess it is not possible for him to make if VERY SHORT and in it give reference to his user page where he can stick all the detail he likes? Basically because he is not considered of sufficient notability .. as I understand from all the discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.170.169 (talk) 09:35, 25 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 13:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TT Nyhetsbyrån[edit]

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

Apparently this is a copyvio, or so a madman or madbot or something tells us. Additionally, there is already an article on this wire service under its long-standing name Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå. A move of that article can be discussed (I have no opinion either way), but the creator of this page went about it in the wrong way by creating a new page from text plagiarized from elsewhere. Hegvald (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm withdrawing this nomination. Please close it. As a temporary measure, I have redirected TT Nyhetsbyrån to Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå. Some copyvio admin can deal with the history of the page. Moving Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå to the new name of the organization is probably uncontroversial, but can be discussed at Talk:Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå. --Hegvald (talk) 10:26, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese calendar, Lunar Nodes and history[edit]

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

This article is a bunch of rubbish based on a series of events out of thousands that occurred either 30 or 60 years apart (important periods in the Chinese calendar). Appears to be a vanity article. Also appears to be written by a single user (sometimes logged in, sometimes not). Violates WP:IINFO. — TimL • talk 07:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we already have an article on Chinese calendar, this article only adds various random and unconnected historical events. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crackpot at work. Certainly not using reliable sources, even if part of this is not OR. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there is a suitable catch-all article on flaky numerology and history. Give them a pyramid inch....TheLongTone (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure POV and OR. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would even consider speedy tagging this as a hoax, but this will work just as well. Per Qwertyus. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though the ideas may not be believable, they come from sources that indicate its notability. This is definitely not a hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the concept of "notability" as it applies to Wikipedia. Just because other people have "noticed" that there are random events that have randomly occurred thirty and sixty years apart does not make them notable. — TimL • talk 19:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the concept that is notable, because of people writing about it. When they write whole books then the topic becomes notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the opinions of some, concepts do not become both notable and suitable for inclusion on wikipedia once someone writes one or more books about them. a quick glance at WP:GNG suggests that such in-depth coverage would satisfy the notability requirement, but it doesn't, because we would expect to see coverage from more than just one author on such a broad and far-reaching topic. We need reliable third-party sources or wikipedia isn't verifiable. Not long ago, an amateur historian by the name of Gavin Menzies wrote a book claiming that Ming Dynasty explorers from china landed in America in 1421. This got a ton of third-party coverage. But since none of his claims were valid historical arguments, none of them get to be repeated uncritically here on wikipedia. The article on Zheng He, the subject of his book, doesn't even mention him or his ideas, and nor should it, but Menzies himself gets his own article because of the overwhelming media response to his work. The same principles apply here. The ideas are quakery and the author and his books aren't particularly notable, so there's no reason to include them on wikipedia. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:54, 28 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 procedurally closed as wrong forum; you should take this to WP:RFD. (Non-admin closure.) Sideways713 (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Zhvania[edit]

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

should have a WP BIO or redlink until that time, not a redirect to the party he's in Львівське (говорити) 07:16, 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 delete. A7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 09:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dj buddy holly[edit]

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

Fails both WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability at all, other than having an artist page on the MTV website, and being mentioned in a book about weddings. No awards or commendations. No hits. Josh3580_talk/hist 05:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artist received numerous awards from the United States Local Business Association. The artist has also been awarded Best of 2012 by Gigmasters.com, one of the nations leading online booking agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyrockinsac (talk • contribs) 05:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to gigmasters.com, that award went to Rick Torres (Elvis impersonator).Josh3580_talk/hist 06:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look up http://www.gigmasters.com/dj/djbuddyholly as proof of the award given. Rick Torres is in a completely different category and not in the DJ category.

That page is an artist's page on gigmaster, not an article about the award. Please see the verifiabilty and reliability guidelines. Josh3580_talk/hist 06:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the award now, it means the artist received at least four stars from his bookings. I still don't think that meets WP:NOTABILITY, but this discussion will resolve it. Thank you for being so responsive. Josh3580_talk/hist 06:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The company also received Best of Burlingame 3 years in a row for the Music category from the United States Local Business Associated located in Washington D.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyrockinsac (talk • contribs) 06:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe award mentioned specifically above definitely does not elevate this person to the level of notability required by WP:NMUSIC. As that is the entirety of reliably sourced content in this article and I find absolutely nothing in the way of reliable sources to reference any of it, I will be placing a G11 speedy on it instead. I will be deleting all the unreferenced biographical info per WP:BLP shortly. John from Idegon (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis artist is also on the hit cd Cyberfest 2000 along with major music artists Moby, Mix Master Mike, Paul Okenfold etc. Cyberfest 2000: Sounds of the digital revolution, is a hit CD. The artist is notable in having an original song featured while artist was under the name DJ Devious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyrockinsac (talk • contribs) 06:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Any number of non notable awards will not make someone notable. As per WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Bluefist ^talk 06:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also regarding the "Best of Burlingame" award mentioned above, see this from the BBB [4] And please stop wasting our time with unreferenced claims of achievement. Unless you can provide a citation to a reliable source, it didn't happen. John from Idegon (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddy Holly (disk_jockey) for previous discussion. Josh3580_talk/hist 06:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering the above, I would ask the closing admin consider salting too. John from Idegon (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. There just isn't any notability for this guy. The award is maybe enough to save him from the speedy he's up for, but it definitely can't give him any notability. Part of the reason is because ultimately it's a WP:PRIMARY source since he uses the site to sell his services as a DJ. It's in their best interests to give their awards to people they represent since it could make them more money. There's also the problem that the award doesn't seem to really be notable to anyone other than Gigmasters.com and the people they give it to. Other than that, there really isn't any coverage for this guy. I'd have speedied it myself except that I tagged a redirect for this guy that went to Buddy Holly. I've salted the other article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 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 keep. The argument for deletion is clearly inferior to the grounded reasons for keeping Courcelles 17:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Griffin (politician)[edit]

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

Non-Notable politician. A search on Google, Yahoo! and other search engines yield very little result if any results for the Canadian politician even when Lois Griffin the character from the American TV series Family Guy was filtered out in the search results. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – First woman named chair of the Toronto Transit Commission, which is a fairly high-profile position in Canada's largest city (see, for example, how much news coverage current chair Karen Stintz receives as a result of her position). The difficulty here is that Google et al will not be able to access much news coverage from the late 1980s and early 1990s. I have access to a database that includes old Toronto Star articles, and I'm finding dozens of hits for "Lois Griffin"+"TTC". I've added a few of the most relevant ones, two of which are fairly lengthy articles entirely about Griffin. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MOS:CA#Municipal politics, Toronto councillors are notable. 117Avenue (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to request that this discussion be extended beyond the 7 day period to allow for a better consensus. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:25, 31 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. Lots of single purpose accounts here... Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. If you want to discuss undeleting this article, please request it at deletion review, not on my talk page. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerasim Avsharyan[edit]

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

Promo of a nonnotable Russian psychologist - Altenmann >t

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources, clearly part of a coordinated spam effort on behalf of several Russian psychologists. -- Y not? 15:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, to search for a Russian author, it is necessary to type his name in Russian letters and not in Englisch.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)so the search engine does not find much.

And so can we find more: books Parsbol (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You can not delete an article because of incorrect search.

The correct search brings the results:

books

State Library

publishing house "Praim Evroznak"

publishing house "Krylow"

publishing house AST

Senatw (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Single-purpose account - Altenmann >t 05:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nice to show us what to search on, but I don't speak Russian and it would be even nicer to provide links to reliable sources about Avsharyan. Most of the links are things by Avsharyan (books by Avsharyan, publisher of Avsharyan books) none of which establish notability (simply publishing a book is not notable). The only decent source I see is the Russian State Library naming one of his books (among 7 other authors) for the second half of 2007, which doesn't seem such a high honor. No book reviews? No biographical article about Avsharyan from an independent source such as a newspaper or journal? No quotes in the news or academic press? -- GreenC 07:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Russian national library has many books of Avsharyan. And your link is only for the best books for 2007. And among the eight best books - Avsharyans book (it is an important fact to wikipedia). Avsharyans book among the eight best books 2007 - it's notability. Primatobyk (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being in the Russian library is not notable. The "best 8 books" says best of the second half of 2007 so it's not an entire year, just the last 6 months of 2007. And it's not an award just an article. And it's only one source, which isn't enough on its own. -- GreenC 18:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Single-purpose account - Altenmann >t 05:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Avsharyan is known not only as a writer, but also as the author of various methods. His phrases and books are cited on various websites. Some of his books are in the lists of recommended books. The article must be considered separately, because it can not be found in magazines and newspapers, and a person still has a notability. The National Library receives books every six months, and the fact that Avsharyans book is one of the best - it is an important fact not only for the half of 2007, but in general. In addition, Avsharyans books are quite popular and common, they can be found not only in Russia but also in other countries. The person has a notability. Pedrosjan (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Single-purpose account - Altenmann >t 05:11, 24 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 24 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, SarahStierch (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gerasim Avsharyan is well known in the CIS. I have looked on the internet. 13 of his books are published. Some books were reprinted several times and spread in different countries. In the CIS he is the one of the most widely read authors of those who wrote about the memory . Along with Samuel Garibyan Avsharyan can be considered as a classic of popular science literature about mnemonics.Oskarlee (talk) 11:50, 28 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) 00:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ipovlopsychophobia[edit]

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

The single reference actually says there is no such term. - Altenmann >t 07:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. Not in the OED & internet search only throws up insubstantial references.TheLongTone (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - new word, but old idea, known since at least the invention in the mid-19th C. The fear or taboo of being photographed is well documented. On WP, see Post-mortem_photography#Responses_in_contemporary_photography, Uluru#Photography, Visual_arts_by_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Photography, Photography by indigenous peoples of the Americas, Wilhelm_von_Gloeden#Attitudes_towards_his_work_during_his_lifetime_and_later, Chamula, etc. There are also lots of possible sources at "taboo against photography" on Google. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 19 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, SarahStierch (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment A taboo is not a phobia.TheLongTone (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made-up term that does not even occur in the given source, nor anywhere on GScholar, and that doesn't even establish that a phobia of being photographed exists, so renaming is not an option at this point either. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article, with the same "source", exists on simple as well. Does anyone know how to get it off that wiki? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I would call simple English!TheLongTone (talk) 16:17, 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 delete on this article, but that the subject may be worthy of mention elsewhere. There were a number of people who recommended merging the content, and they make a reasonable argument that the subject, the independece movement, is notable enough to be mentioned in an article such as History of Angola. However, there are serious policy issues with the content in the article. In its present form, the article does acknowledge the subject as "an unrecognized state", but then it goes on to describe it as a real geographical entity of "approximately the same size as Spain", with a history, and even with a list of rulers, giving the false impression that this is somehow a de facto entity. There are sources in the article, but apart from the website of the group behind it, they don't make reference to the "United Kingdom of Lunda Tchokwe". As such I find the argument that none of the current content is worth merging to be persuasive. The content is not verified by reliable sources, and appears to reflect the ideas of a fringe element giving very undue weight to a fringe point of view. The subject may be covered at the suggested merge targets, but the content here is not suitable for that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom of Lunda Tchokwe[edit]

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

have some look on the "sources". I am really sure that this a hoax, and the "kingdom" exists only on this website. have some look on the "sources". I am really sure that this a hoax, and the "kingdom" exists only on this website. On Commons, the stuff related to that article was already deleted.Antemister (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete; not a hoax but self-proclaimed by a bunch of unknown peopel, no independent refs (the independent ones cited in the article do not say of UKLT, but of generall local history). - Altenmann >t 16:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not a hoax. There is an independence movement claiming historic legitimacy, and for independent verification see the Amnesty link now removed from the article by Altenmann. The movement, and claim behind it, appears notable - if the government has indeed felt it necessary to arrest people for asserting the claim that in itself is sufficient evidence of notability in my view. Nor does the article actually assert that the claim is recognised internationally. The Lunda Tchokwe are a recognised ethnic group - see this tourist site for example, but covered in WP under the name Chokwe people. I suggest that there are two ways to go - to cover the claim to a separate political identity here from a non-POV stance and possibly rename the article, or to expand Chokwe people; I suggest that the former is preferable especially considering the contentious nature. But this is going to be difficult either way because it really needs access to local sources, and a knowledge of the real political history of the area. If there was a single government or ruler for the Lunda Tchokwe people at any time in the past that would of course be sufficient for notability. --AJHingston (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the content is closely paraphrased from this web page by an organization that apparently seeks to redraw the map of central Africa, in order to right the wrongs of European colonialism. If it survives, the article will need rewriting with material from independent sources. But I should think anything worth keeping might as well be merged into History of Angola.—Odysseus 1479 19:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kingdom of Lunda. This state doesn't exist, the independence movement doesn't seem noteworthy in itself, but it seems to be a movement for resurecting the old kingdom. Arms Jones (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 9 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, SarahStierch (talk) 19:54, 16 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, SarahStierch (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly redirect to Kingdom of Lunda. Any recent developments such as independence movements should be mentioned there or in the articles about the corresponding modern territories, but in the present form the article is worthless. Sandstein 12:23, 1 January 2014 (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. No consensus to delete, but failing that there seems to be agreement about renaming the article. Sandstein 12:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Front–Free Syrian Army conflict[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. One rebel group takes over a single position from another group, with a handful of fighters killed in the skirmish, and suddenly we have a new "conflict" on our hands? This is reminiscent of back when the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham started elbowing out other rebel groups in a few places and the Western media was all abuzz about some "new front" opening up in the war—but now, of course, we've seen rebels of all ideological stripes actively collaborate with ISIS, and no sustained fighting has yet materialised. The armed opposition in Syria is a motley collection of disparate groups with differing ideologies, aims, and mindsets, and it's entirely natural that such a disorganised mass will have internal scuffles, spats, and turf wars. Heck, there have even been reports of clashes between pro-government militia as well. If anything, a page called Infighting between rebel groups in the Syrian Civil War or something similar should be created for this and similar incidents. Generalising some protracted "conflict" from one incident is not acceptable. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I agree with lothar's proposal of creating an article of rebel infighting,this is so insignificant,rebel groups are constantly fighting with each other sometimes,and an article about the infightings will suitable,than just making multiple,insignificant articles on every infighting that occurs.Alhanuty (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also the renamed article must include also the former infighting.Alhanuty (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The ISIL and Nusra have clashed according to the Reuters source in the article, but no article has to be made for it; it isn't systematic fighting, it has occurred on a sporadic basis.David O. Johnson (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Lothar and Alhanuty. EkoGraf (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Rename it than. Or just change it to a battle. --SourCreamShoe (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wait until we have solid reliable sources, time-independent from the incident, before we decide that this is a significant incident. Do we have time-independent reliable sources discussing other incidents of infighting, establishing that it's a notable part of the war? If so, I wouldn't have any objections to the renaming issue. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Al-Nursa and ISIL are fighting now http://inserbia.info/news/2013/12/al-nusra-isil-militants-clash-in-syria/ --SourCreamShoe (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete The situation is not as article states; the FSA had asked the Islamic Front to help the FSA guard against ISIS, apparently [[5]]; after reading the article, it seems that they are allies.

Of course they would say that, they are doing damage control now so to save any credibility they have left. If it was really ISIS why did it take them a full week to say it? In any case, I'm also for the delete or rename since the conflict is small in scale. EkoGraf (talk) 16:49, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 20:22, 16 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, SarahStierch (talk) 04:00, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 14:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin MacNeill[edit]

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

Simply convicted of murder and related charges. Not a significant event. Fails notability IAW WP:CRIMINAL. Also, WP:NOTNEWS. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per S. Rich. Run of the mill murderer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to unique attributes: doctor, made multiple murder attempts, convicted of fraud, forgery, identity theft of one of his adopted daughters after wife's death[6][7], circumstantial case, very short jury deliberation. Also, upcoming Feb. 4, 2014 trial for sexual assault[8]. He's a one-man crime wave. (alternatively, merge to List of doctors convicted of murder, which should exist). --Lexein (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added this article when I was unable to find a good summary of the trial on the internet - one of the big stories of the year. I get that WP isn't a forum for summarizing news articles, but this seemed to be exceptional.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -[9][10]. The case and this person himself has recieved coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by OP. The policies we see in WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS & WP:NEWSEVENT apply. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Unique attributes do not make the crime notable. Consider, per Murder#Incidence "An estimated 520,000 people were murdered in 2000 around the globe." With so many murders it is inevitable that thousands of such crimes each year will have interesting aspects and news coverage. To compare, murder rates around the world are an encyclopedic topic. And articles about OJ Simpson, Lee Harvey Oswald, or Charles Manson are worthwhile. But just because this criminal trial ~~in this smaller state~~ gets ~~local~~ news reporting it does not make him or his victim notable. And once he's sentenced he will disappear from the news scene, indicating non-endurance. (BTW, I have nom'd Michele MacNeill for AfD as well.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)21:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those look like national news refs to me: NBC, CNN, ABC. "Smaller state" is not an argument for deletion. "Local news" - demonstrably not. Obvious unique attributes certainly counter the assertion that it's a "run of the mill" murder. If you want to lard on more refs, both national and local, we could dump them all in, but it meets GNG without them. --Lexein (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: his conviction for the murder, and sentencing, doesn't end the story. There's still the upcoming Feb. 4, 2014 trial for sexual assault[3, above]. I think this is a rush to deletion on insufficient grounds. --Lexein (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: First broadcast/live-streamed trial in Utah history (added). --Lexein (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was a significant murder trial, I totally get that wikipedia should not be used as a repository for information about crime victims, but this was a large murder trial that dominated news coverage during the trial with particulary unusual side-twists (identity theft, lover made narry, etc.). Based upon what you're saying, should Murder of Laci Peterson, Scott Peterson, Drew Peterson, Jon Benet Ramsey be deleted?... and should Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave_famous_people/M/Mit people like Theresa Moers and some even less notable ones (cannot remember all but there's an article about a mother who was killed after her daughter committed suicide and a Find-A-Grave famous people listing to create an article about the daughter) be removed from the Fina A Grave famous people list?

I wasn't sure which was more appropriate, one about Martin or Michelle, but it sure seems similar to the other named articles above where the individuals are not noteworthy other than having been a victim or murderer.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 21 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question I saw that this was relisted for discussion, but in the meantime the Michelle MacNeil article was deleted. We haven't reached consensus, but I thought we at least had acknowledgement that this wasn't something just covered in regional press and perhaps as significant as Lacy Peterson, Scott Peterson, and Drew Peterson types of cases and national media coverage. Is that where we're at? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I posted a PROD on Michelle MacNeil thinking that this AfD would resolve sooner. At that point either Michelle could be merged into Martin (if kept) or deleted if Martin was deleted. The possibility of incorporating Michelle info into Martin's article is still there – if the article is kept. But the fact that no interest was shown in keeping the article about the victim is telling. It helps illustrate that this article does not have any enduring value. – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I had assumed that it wouldn't be deleted til we resolved this inter-related discussion.

If there is to be just one article, I think it may make sense to merge some of Michelle's information to Martin's article, since there seem to be ongoing issues with Martin, per edits made since nominated for deletion and upcoming trial, etc.

I'll ask administrators (Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Michele MacNeill) to restore Michelle's article to my user space (User:CaroleHenson/Michele MacNeill til we sort this out. From what I've been reading here, there's been an acknowledgement that this was not just a regional story.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see anything here that makes this murder, victim or defendant any more noteworthy than the hundreds of other murders that happen every year. There may be some traffic on this subject for a couple of months (the conviction was less than 60 days ago) but this is not an historical event. Yes, this murder is very important to the family and friends of the victim but the same could be said about every life lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerRoger1 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will try to be a bit more succinct about this reasoning for this article. (Not sure why it's so important to me, but apparently it is). 1) This is a case that has been, and continues to be in national news, 2) it has [ongoing readership] with about 6,700 hits in the past 30 days, 3) it is like Drew Peterson, Scott Peterson, and other similar stories (want more examples), where it made national news partly because of the circumstances surrounding the case, 4) it's helpful to keep these type of stories periodically in the forefront to keep awareness of how twisted domestic abuse / murder can become, and 5) I wrote it because there was so much national coverage, but nothing that really summarized the case down to the key facts.

For what it's worth, I'm often on the other side of the deletion nomination debate, most recently for several genealogy based articles and as part of a project to resolve notability issues (cleaning up/sourcing the article, nominating for deletion) of women artists.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:44, 31 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Sound & North Grey Union Public Library[edit]

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

This article doesn't seem to credibly indicate the notability of this subject. I tagged for A7, but this doesnt cover buildings (although I thought it counted as an organisation, but never mind). Benboy00 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benboy00

We are new to this and still learning.

Owen Sound & North Grey Union Public Library is a public library in Ontario, Canada and like the many other public libraries that are found in Wikipedia we wish to share the history and services (past and present) of this institution.

The service has been provided in part since 1855 and the 1914 Carnegie Library is about to celebrate its 100th anniversary. The physical building is of heritage status and the organization is one of the oldest in Owen Sound, Ontario, Canada.

Osngupl (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice that your username has the same initials as the article you created. I suspect that this infringes wikipedias policy on usernames (WP:U). In a nutshell, wikipedia doesnt want organisations or groups as editors, it wants individuals. By choosing a name that seems to represent an organisation, you violate this rule. I appreciate that you are new to this, but please read the username policy, because this account will probably be blocked. I'll put some stuff on your talk page to help you. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likely keep - I'm sure that the references can be improved to show notability. A 100 year old Carnegie Library surely has more than this in the way of mentions in reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Currently, the "History" and "Architectural Highlights of the Carnegie Library" sections are copyvios of this page at the library's Web site. Unless a valid OTRS ticket is filed, these parts of the article, in their current form, will have to be removed. Deor (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain The library as a library is not notable, except as being in a building that might be. I am trying to figure out whether it would be a good idea for us to regard every individual Carnegie building as notable--though there are common elements, they are all different. (As Deor noticed, that part will in any case need to be rewritten.) DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 3 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) 00:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article makes no assertion of significance. Let's be clear, the article is about the Library, not the building that houses it. To opine that the subject should be notable is not the same as presenting sourcing that shows it to be notable. The WP:CSD#a7 tag was removed on grounds of A7 not applying to buildings. Once again, the article is about an organization housed in a building. It is not about the building. The article makes it plain that it is about an organization that serves a locality and its taxpayers. The full list of services offered at the library make it promotional in tone. "The Library is our passport to the future," is, (as a former library board member I can assure you) the sort of pap that goes on a library's web page to stir up emotion and support. It is promotional. This heavy sourcing from the subject's webpage may be used only for factual sourcing apart from establishing notability. That the building might be notable is insufficient rationale for keeping the article about the organization it houses. The only sourcing in the article for its status as a Carnegie library is the subject's webpage, and so would need to be reliably sourced. The subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Dlohcierekim 15:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep I've changed my opinion on the matter, though there needs to be better sourcing and the promotional material in the article needs to rewritten. Dlohcierekim 23:19, 20 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its assertion of significance is that it is a Carnegie library, one of only 125 in Canada. The Library has always been in that building, so saying its about the Library and NOT about the building is a very weak argument. Being as the Article is less than 30 days old, I say give it the benefit of the doubt as there is enough history to the organization and the building to flesh out a fuller Article. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be interested to know if anyone has access to the full text of "...a case study conducted in 2007 that examined the Owen Sound (Ontario) Carnegie Library as a place."
- I dont think a thing (in this case, a building) should be thought of as notable just because there aren't many of the same type in that country. By that reasoning, there should be an article on each of the 125 libraries in canada as well as the other 2300 in the USA and UK. It is very clear that the majority of this article is about the library, and not the building, which is why I initially nommed for CSD A7. Benboy00 (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, I can only get March on the journal. File a request WP:RX, maybe? Chris857 (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have obtained the journal article through my university - it is a 28 page document and looks to be quite in-depth from a brief scan through. Regrettably it's not an open journal and there's a scary copyright message there so I'm not able to forward it on. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:38, 31 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. From the discussion above, it looks like it can be fixed instead of deleted. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per arguments above and also "Griffis, Matthew (01/06/2010). "Living history: the Carnegie Library as place in Ontario". Canadian journal of information and library science , 34 (2), p. 185." Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:41, 31 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 political parties in New Zealand#Unregistered parties. And merge from history as needed. Consensus is that this shouldn't be a separate article. Sandstein 14:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ravlich[edit]

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

Non notable politician. Failed to win office (47 votes in Mount Albert in 2005, 67 votes in Auckland Central in 2008). Only coverage is about a minor local news event. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Rights Party (New Zealand), political party founded by Ravlich. -- GreenC 20:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not win election fails politician and the single local news story resulting in a $200 fine was basically manufactured by Ravlich who intentionally broke the law to make a point (and get coverage). -- GreenC 20:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ in case we decide that the party that he founded is notable enough for inclusion (see the related AfD). Schwede 66 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of political parties in New Zealand#Unregistered_parties, now that that has happened to the related article. Schwede 66 17:23, 16 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable - way beyond didn't win election. And neither is that party (see wp:Crystal. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of political parties in New Zealand#Unregistered parties, or any spin-off article using that as a base, as per comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Rights Party (New Zealand). Daveosaurus (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect supported NealeFamily (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is not just a politician but also a broadcaster and contributor to public debate on human rights especially the non-inclusion in the NZBORA of social and cultural rights.Rick570 (talk) 19:57, 22 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No solid coverage from independent reliable sources per our general inclusion criteria. Definitely doesn't pass our inclusion criteria for politicians. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: subject is well within "our" general inclusion criteria. In particular, the subject is given "significant coverage" (addressing him directly and in detail) and both main references deal mainly with the subject. The NZPA (New Zealand Press Association) and Otago Daily Times references are very reliable secondary sources and they are certainly independent of the subject. The article does not "violate what Wikipedia is not" (sic)Rick570 (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates can be notable if they have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Definitely applies in respect of this person and the article should therefore be kept.

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. Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. If you want to discuss undeleting this article, please request it at deletion review, not on my talk page. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big room house[edit]

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

Revolves around a possibly fake genre. I've given the article the opportunity to add more sources but the only one added was from a blog which I believe blogs are deemed an unreliable source. F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 18:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there is a slight distinction from progressive house, Big Room House does not need its own wiki. A lot of the artists mentioned are not specifically aligned to producing just Big Room House. The majority of them have released one or two songs, if any, that are considered "big room." Also the definition of Big Room House is very vague and the origins are completely wrong.- Csharp1990 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.155.219 (talk) [reply]
Delete. It can't stay without reliable sources, despite my belief the genre is distinct from progressive house. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This new (and distinct) movement in EDM is undoubtedly taking the scene by storm, dominating the sets of DJ's at most major festivals, and also sparking substantial controversy. Just because it's hard to find formal documentation on it doesn't make it unimportant, this is the case with virtually every genre of electronic music. There's tons of buzz about big room in the EDM community, I will be adding sources that feature commentary from movers & shakers of the 'scene.' - User:Keepinternetfree 21:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The blog citation you mention is a secondary source to an interview, which would be considered a primary source. If you do not like it being a blog, then the original transcript can always be found. Regardless, more citations are currently being found and added; as of this post there are five. I also back Keepinternetfree's statement: citations on a new musical genre are difficult to find, much less for electronic music, and even less for one so new. As much as I personally dislike the genre, I must vote for keeping the article. Myconix (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article says nothing about it being or referencing an interview.--98.113.47.2 (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't take your word for it. We need fully cited references on the page now. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Big Room house is dominating the charts on electronic music download cites and is currently one of the highest played sub genres of modern electronic music. For this reason it should be kept. It is also easily distinguishable from most forms of EDM as well as sharing some characteristics of progressive house. It is currently in high demand and is considered a very dynamic sub genre of EDM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.11.214 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to question some of the ethics of this article. Why does source 1, source 3 and source 5 not mention one thing about big room house? (Really, Ctrl+F Big Room, nothing). Why is it that 3 of the 5 sources are under "Criticism"? Really, the only passable source on here is source 4 and that itself isn't quite appropriate for Wikipedia.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 16:23, 12 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be a separate genre, but that does not really matter if there are not reliable sources to indicate that. Reliable sources have not been forthcoming, despite time and encouragement being supplied. It clearly fails WP:NOTE.--SabreBD (talk) 00:20, 22 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whether it's "real" is, I guess, debatable. Whether it's possible to source it reliably though is not in question. It isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SabreBD. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to F-22 Raptor's claims (and other skepticism), I'd like to point out that perhaps a major source of contention in this debate is the inclusion of the word "house" in the article title. As this is a genre composed from a mash-up of others, I don't think calling it "house" music is necessarily accurate. Articles (such as the sources F-22 Raptor pointed out) call the musical movement by varying terms, including big room EDM, big-room dance, etc, but the essential big room sound they refer to is the same across the board (as are the debates surrounding it). It might be wise to change the article title to Big room/Big-room (with redirects from similar terms included). Electronic music is generally quite underground and dissipated/discussed through informal channels; if we delete articles about clearly pertinent trends in EDM simply because traditional sources take a bit of work to find, Wikipedia would undoubtedly find itself lagging behind as a source of information in that department. Sorry for droning on, I will find/add some better sources tomorrow to support my points. - User:Keepinternetfree 04:53, 29 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. The issues presented by those arguing for deletion are either not reasons for deletion but cleanup and/or have been rebutted by those wanting to keep the list. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Omega Psi Phi chapters[edit]

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

This and all such lists are violations of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Orange Mike | Talk 00:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:A *clean* list, I'm talking about without "Notorius Nu" (and probably without the links to the chapter websites), doesn't hit any of the subcategories mentioned in WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 14:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:NOTDIR doesn't apply here (and given the WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination, I can only guess at an argument that it does). But it seems to me that a notable fraternity's list of chapters at notable educational institutions, complete with annotated information on when those chapters were founded, etc., passes WP:LISTPURP as relevant information in our coverage of the fraternity (and of the universities, for that matter). If this could fit easily into the parent article, then I don't think there'd be any complaint, and it doesn't magically become unencyclopedic when it's WP:SPLIT for size and formatting issues alone. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:59, 7 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If WP:NOT applies, it is most likely WP:NOTLINK. This is a mere re-packaging of links to chapters as can be found on the home fraternity's web site. The, uh, creatively idiosyncratic "notes" column for some of the chapters further demonstrates non-encyclopedic nature. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you would change to a support if the links and notes were removed?Naraht (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that would be only 2/3rds of the material to be removed. The chapter listings are already available on the fraternity's web site. WP is not Yahoo or Google, so those I would suggest also removing those listings. That leaves less than a stub, so there is no reason to retain the article. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Omega Psi Phi has a list of chapters on their website is only relevant in whether it comes from primary sources (and in this case since this is non-controversial, OK). If Omega Psi Phi were to remove them, so that the information was only available from an archive.org location, that could be used as a primary source and you would be OK with it on Wikipedia???Naraht (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop lobbying me for retention. I have made my opinion clear and given my reasons, which are based in the current state of policy and the current state of the article. If you think there is a way to "save" the article by improving it, then do so. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "discussion". You are free to not respond to his questions and critique of your comments (and the closer will judge the substance of each appropriately), but it's not appropriate to characterize him as "lobbying" you as if he's doing something inappropriate. postdlf (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where lobbying is defined as inappropriate and I'll retract my remarks. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 23 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Postdlf's points above. I'm inclined to think that the "Notes" column, as presently constituted, could be excised (any genuinely notable material about a particular chapter could be footnoted), but that issue and others about whether the chart should be condensed and/or remerged into the main article can be discussed on the talk page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:45, 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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LLBLGen Pro[edit]

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

This software product has no third party sources whatsoever. I've looked for suitable sources, and aside from a couple of blog posts and forum postings, I can't find any. Accordingly, I think this article does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted.

I am also nominating the closely related page on the discontinued free version of this software.

- MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can you decide that there are no suitable 3rd party sources when I click on the provided links above to find sources in e.g. books I get plenty? E.g. https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22LLBLGen+Pro%22 lists many books referring to it, one even being solely about it. I have the feeling you haven't looked very well then. (e.g. it's on Microsoft's entity framework documentation landing page http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/ee712907 as it is one of the tools supporting EF).

About the free version page: it's there to make sure people don't make the wrong assumption the commercial version is the free version, although nowadays it's uncommon to make this error as the free one has been discontinued for quite some time now and the commercial one has been used by many people over the years and still is.

So in short, if LLBLGen Pro's article is removed it's not about lack of external resources, but some other reason, which I quite frankly have no idea about. - Otis_Inf (talk 12:09 26 November 2013 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 11:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC) — Otis_Inf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I looked at the Google Books results, but they seem to be inclusions on lists of tools (that is trivial mentions) or short sections of how-to style information, not things we could use to source the article. The one exception, the book by Chancellor, is self published and not helpful for our purposes here. Can you point out a specific book (or newspaper article, etc) that covers the software in some depth? - MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have to be printed press? Anyway, second link on the result page at google: http://books.google.com/books?id=UxDLk5HoidwC&pg=PA360&dq=%22LLBLGen+Pro%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3Q-VUuG8F6e60QWM_4CYAQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAg

I must say I'm a bit annoyed. LLBLGen Pro is for more than 10 years a common name among ORM tools for .NET, and one of the very few commercial successful ORM tools left for .NET. Do I really have to hand you links to printed press to show that an article about a software tool is justified? Isn't that a little bizarre in this day and age? It's referenced on many sites out there, softpedia etc.. It's a little hard to find links in printed press online, IMHO. Infoq links are OK too? Or are those 'blogposts' too despite it being a major software development news site? I find it a little odd that I have to prove with paper sources whether an article in Wikipedia is justified for a software development tool that's so widely known and used as LLBLGen Pro. Sorry. -- Otis_Inf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I just recalled there's also an hour of video showing LLBLGen Pro on the DevExpress channel at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv-Ozug5JMM 3rd party enough? --Otis Inf (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LLBLGen is well-known: I'm in the software field but not specifically object-relationship mapping, and I've heard of it many times over the years. There's a detailed review by Ayende Rahien here: http://ayende.com/blog/4579/nhibernate-tooling-review-llblgen-pro-3-0. Although the review is on a blog, it is by an unrelated third party, who is a recognized expert with non-self-published work in the field, and is thus acceptable according to WP:Reliable. --Steven Kelly (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book by Chancellor is self-published but that doesn't mean it's not a valid 3rd party source: mr. Chancellor is in no way affiliated with us now or in the past. Besides, what is not proven with the sources we contributed or which are easily found through google? As I'm at a loss why LLBLGen Pro's page is even considered to be deleted. IF the page is deleted, the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_object-relational_mapping_software is less helpful for readers as one of the widely used tools, LLBLGen Pro lacks a page here. I.o.w. 'mrOllie', I'm not sure what you're after... Otis Inf (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am 'after' ensuring that this article meets the inclusion guidelines. That means that either third party sources that meet our guidelines are added (that is, not self published blogs or lulu.com books), or the article is deleted. I have no preference as to which of those outcomes occurs. - MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So i.o.w: you just want to apply your strict form of guidelines as 'rules' and ignore anything that's been brought forward, including answering any questions. By applying those guidelines as rules, most O/R mapping software tool pages can be deleted, simply because these guidelines speak of printed media and in this particular niche of software tools printed media isn't used often, or it's in a form which will never meet your strict guidelines to begin with. That there are other sources which do prove exactly what a printed book would too, namely that the page isn't about some non-existing tool which is used by nobody, is completely irrelevant to you apparently.

Btw, you missed a step too, you should have place a banner first which asks for sources before it is passed on to the step you immediately moved to. But whatever. It's not as if you give a hoot nor know anything about O/R mappers to begin with. I just find it silly to have to prove here like I'm on trial that what I've spent the last 12 years of my life working on full time, which is a successful business, which is well known in the .NET development community, is actually true and that I didn't make it all up here on this page on Wikipedia.

If no admin has replied by sunday I'll remove the banners from the pages as it's apparently less of a problem than you want everyone to know. Otis Inf (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are three pages about LLBLGen Pro in a printed book from Springer, Pro LINQ Object Relational Mapping with C# 2008 (Table of Contents). I consider notability established, and second the removal of the banner. --Steven Kelly (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Otis Inf:, @Steven Kelly:, please do not remove banners from articles actively under deletion discussion. In addition, attacking the nominator isn't acceptable behavior. The notability criteria for software is covered at WP:NSOFT, and the purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the article qualifies for inclusion based on those and other guidelines. Otis, since you seem to be involved in the software project, it may be important to review WP:COI. L Faraone 01:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a discussion? Several items have been brought forward, however nothing has really been said/done. I'm involved because I wrote all 1.1million lines of code of the project. I don't see how that's a problem though, as I didn't gave resources written by me, but by third parties, one is even a project member of another ORM. If you want to know my credibility in the .NET community, please search for 'Frans Bouma' and listen to one of the interviews I gave on some of the popular .NET podcasts. Frankly, I didn't know product pages were supposed to be written by 3rd parties as well... (have you checked other pages in the commercial ORM realm on wikipedia for this? I have the feeling you haven't)

Anyway, I have no further ideas what it is you all want to prove. The thing with niche markets is that small tools do exist but there's not enough critical mass for publishers to publish books for these tools. We have over 5500 companies as customer in 70+ countries, yet it is still a small market for book publishers, so the books you'll see regarding ORM tools are about entity framework (as MS publishes that) and to a lesser extend Nhibernate. If you still want to see prove we even exist in the form of a 3rd party full blown book then it won't work, but you have to ask yourself what that really proves: it's not as if we don't exist, or that people don't use the tool, on the contrary. It only shows book publishers don't see it a valuable investment to publish a book about a toolkit which doesn't have a million users.

I don't make the rules here, if you want to remove the page because it doesn't match some (IMHO) skewed criteria, I can't stop you. I do however want to express that these rules don't really make much sense in this day and age where printed media is used less and less and websites, blogposts and even just pages on github are the sole source of information. In my humble opinion, the gist of the guidelines is that there should be some sort of credibility out there, i.e.: the product is still alive and the page isn't an ad, and what's said on the page is true. With products there's just one problem: even with published books, they intend to rehash the published material of the vendor of the product: the core source of what they'll say what the product can do is still the vendor's documentation, so in the end still the vendor.

I was and still am annoyed that our page is the only commercial ORM page up for removal, while the rest of the .NET commercial orm pages are left as-is, I have to give prove of the relevance and existence of my own work and everything that's been brought forward has either been ignored completely or shot down as irrelevant, without a single word why it would NOT prove anything while a book from, say, 2007 would, and last but not least, that no admin has stepped in and either gave any of it even a single thought and voted. So here we are, more than a week after the banner was put up, and nothing has been decided in the slightest. According to the guidelines, this whole matter should be decided in more or less a week. I now know the relist extends that period but there has been NO activity of any admin in the first week. Because all the items we and others have brought forward have been ignored or declared irrelevant, I don't see what another week of no participation of any admin would bring. --Otis Inf (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists, but those articles aren't currently under discussion, this one is. The inclusion criteria aren't meant as a means to determine the "value" or "worthiness" of a work, or even whether it is real, although the latter is definitely important. Furthermore, the guidelines don't in any way require printed sources, just reliable ones that are independent of the subject. L Faraone 16:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see the conversation getting back to the issue at hand. Otis Inf obviously has a conflict of interest (and the page has been largely added by Otis Inf, after an earlier page created by someone else had been deleted for some reason), but the question at the moment is about notability proven by third party sources, not the content of the page, and least of all the author. Nothing speaks better about the ability of people to maintain a neutral point of view, despite personal interest, than the similarity between the information on the current page and the review http://ayende.com/blog/4579/nhibernate-tooling-review-llblgen-pro-3-0 of LLBLGen Pro by Ayende Rahien, who worked on the competing product, NHibernate.

The suggestion for deletion has not been supported by anybody else, and was based on the mistaken belief that there was no third party source. I have provided 2 sources above that are WP:Reliable. Presumably that suffices for the purposes of this discussion? --Steven Kelly (talk) 12:14, 4 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, SarahStierch (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been more than a week after the second (and according to the Wikipedia rules, the final) re-enlistment and no comments have been brought forward. Isn't it so that the proposal is now officially voided and the page can stay? (that is what I understand from the wikipedia rules regarding proposal to removal). --Otis Inf (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify - there appears to be sources enough to clear the WP:GNG threshold, but most of the current content is not supported by those sources, being marketing-speak or feature lists.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now, closer to a stub than anything. I do think the additional sources provided by Steven Kelly provide enough notability, but barely. GRUcrule (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Sources are reliable, but I doubt significant coverage. Sancho 17:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search on sources don't show that there are enough. I can see from reading here that the keep camp has a few votes. If they are kept, they should at the very least be merged. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 23 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but may I ask what the justification is for relisting it for the 3rd time? The rules clearly state (IMHO) that this isn't something one should do. It now looks like someone is pushing this till there's a consensus delete, otherwise it gets relisted: there was voting, it was not uniform for delete, the period of participating in the voting has long passed, and therefore the rules state that it then should not be deleted and the banner should be removed. Could someone please explain to me why the rules state something else than what's done here? Thanks. --Otis Inf (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is entirely notable and easily passes WP:GNG. It is a well respected and well used code generator for domain/ORM layer generation and is probably in the top 5 products of it category, on the go for the last 10 years. Why is it being nominated again? scope_creep talk 21:06 28 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. If you want to discuss undeleting this article, please request it at deletion review, not on my talk page. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shwebomin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: Most of the sourced links are broken. One thing I am sure is no historian working on Burmese history ever mentioned his name. He is not mentioned in official genealogy. The grandson of King Thibaw, Taw Phaya also stated that he is the only surviving grandson. The question is, of course, not about the legitimacy but about notability. Did he generate enough controversy? Considering no historian, and no notable figure, no reliable news agency for example BBC, have ever mentioned his name, and probably no interested parties have ever heard of him, I believe this article shouldn't be here. Of course, anyone can go around London and claim to be of Royal Lineage. SWH^®^talk 06:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find a reliable source that directly confronts his claims, but they're almost certainly bogus in light of Taw Phaya's quite sufficiently documented story (and quite a few less-reliable sources detail that). That aside, even people with fabricated claims can be notable (Perkin Warbeck, Kaspar Hauser). But I don't see that much here. The references provide very little actual coverage, and what there is is mostly in local London-area papers with dubious editorial oversight (a topic raised even in the first AFD, way back in the crazy days of 2004 when being talked about on Usenet was a signifier of notability!), or are clearly not independent (such as interviews with the purported prince). There's nothing here to meet current inclusion standards, and while legitimate royalty and plausible pretenders get something of a pass by the nature of their titles, that doesn't extend this far. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable with significant coverage. There are no longer deadlinks in the article's references, the former links have been restored using archive data in accordance with Wikipedia:Link rot. Also, there are things that can be considered reliable when they come from the biographical article's source. See WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source and WP:SELFPUB#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. It would seems that one's status as a pretender would fall into the usable category, and thus make an interview a reliable source for that purpose. Shwebomin is also listed as a claimant under Burma in the Constantian Society database. While I don't believe that he is the legitimate pretender to the Burmese throne, see Christopher Buyers's Genealogy of the Konbaung Dynasty especially page 19, I do believe, as is substantiated in the article by reliable sources, that he is a pretender. So what if he is primarily a socialite (See helping open Stephen Desmond's documentary, 'The Jaweed Al Ghussein Story', socialites can be notable. See the article on Anna Anderson for a similar, but distinct, case. --Bejnar (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by significant coverage? Does any reliable source mention him? (Let's say BBC or Guardian for example). I think you are confusing Alaungpaya, Prince of Shwebo (because he started the conquest of Burma from Shwebo, "min" means prince) with the so-called Shwebomin, the pretender here. (Alaungpaya is the name stated in your put.com list. They clearly stated "no known claimant for Burma") I checked the genealogy, http://www.royalark.net/Burma/konbau19.htm, I don't see any mentioning of his name. Please don't confuse with other people with similar or exactly the same names. Shwebo is the town where the dynasty was founded. So, Shwebomin (min is prince), has so many historical antecedents. As for the interview, I am not questioning about whether it is self-published or not. But about whether "defining movement" can be reliable source for such purpose. Anna Anderson is an undisputedly notable figure nowhere comparable to the Shwebomin here, to whom some people labeling as fraud. And as I have mentioned before, no serious Burmese historian acknowledges there is a controversy. SWH^®^talk 11:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am talking about the topic of this article, the London socialite who is pretending to be a crown prince. --Bejnar (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he also pointed out that Shwebomin was not mentioned in Constantian Society database and Genealogy of the Konbaung Dynasty as you'd claimed. PhyoWP *click 17:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't claim that, quite the opposite. Read what I wrote more closely. Page 19 is where his name ought to occur were he to be listed. (subjunctive case) --Bejnar (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Anderson article has high quality sources to back up such as books, research papers and many others. But Shwebomin doesn't have any. I would vote keep even if he has just one link to BBC, Guardian, AP, The Irrawaddy or similar reputable newspapers with him or Royal Family as topic of discussion. It can also be just one paper or book from a reputable historian researching Burmese history. But he doesn't have any. My insistence on having at least one high quality source is to prevent this article from POV and promotional edits in the future. I don't think it is good if all information from the article comes from Shwebomin himself (interviews) and his websites (so-called Royal Burmese Society). Right now, we have Joseph Crisp's article to balance against. While I do not object it, I don't know whether his Geocities entry could be reliable. Should it be removed in the future, the article will become POV again. SWH^®^talk 00:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Do a internet search on his name and there are numerous articles written about him. Also, there are two news videos aired of him in the United Kingdom.

1. Interview about Leadership & Selflessness with Prince Shwebomin by The Defining Moment 2. Interview about Power Vs. Moral Authority with Prince Shwebomin by The Defining Moment --Additionally, Please see the book THE KING IN EXILE, written by Sudha Shah, About the Royal Family of Burma, Crown Prince Shwebomin is listed epilogue "3", please see link: [11] Here is more information on the book "The King in Exile: The Fall of the Royal Family of Burma" , where Crown Prince Shwebomin is listed: [12] >>INFO made by prior member concerning facts>>>>>NOTICE MEMBERS in ENGLAND <<<<<<<<

I am not from England, but if a member here on wikipedia is located in England, would they mind contacting the

The Philip Green Memorial Trust because Prince Shwebomin is listed as a Patron of the organization along with other prominent people in the United Kingdom and from around the world.

They could give information concerning his lineage if they are accepting him as a Patron becauase he would had to provide an application with family information that for their organization that helps children in the United Kingdom.[13]

The Philip Green Memorial Trust: Prince Shwebomin is listed on the first row left side

There contact information: [14]

Address: The Philip Green Memorial Trust

The Philip Green Memorial Trust 301 Trafalger House Grenville Place Mill Hill London NW7 3SA

Tel: 020 8906 8732 Fax: 020 8906 8574 email: info@pgmt.org.uk

>>>Newspaper info showing Crown Prince Shwebomin<<<

I am sorry. The Trust itself only marginally meets notability. The appearance of his name in the trust patrons list doesn't count here. Further, when an amateur interviewer asked to produce evidence, the Shwebomin himself is using this Wikipedia entry as "evidence". Ironically, this entry cites a very obscure online video in which he claims himself as heir as "evidence". That's what happening here. For the book, it doesn't mention him in a paragraph or anything. I only see a name in a citation, not in content, and nothing about him in the whole book about Burmese Royal Family. (The name Shwebomin can be easily confused with other historical kings, princes with similar or the same name as well. As mentioned above, Alaungpaya, "Prince of Shwebo or Shwebomin, is whom most reliable sources are referring to (Mostly regarding to his tomb in Shwebo). Not the pretender here) And I don't think small publishing local London area newspapers could be counted as reliable sources for the claimant of a Burmese Royal title. SWH^®^talk 11:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the Royal Family of Burma, Crown Prince Shwebomin is listed epilogue "3", please see link: [15], it clearly lists Shwebomin as HRH Crown Prince and the it was conducted in 2006, so it is specifically him. I suggest you read the whole book where he is listed, the book is about the Royal Family of Burma. The google link, does not list have the whole book available online. - There are various newspapers that have quoted Shwebomin such as the United States Newspaper Washington Times Jewish veterans bow to warrior’s memory and the United Kingdom, The Herald (Plymouth) Burmese prince at charity ball - As well the interview is not obscure but many distinguish guests have appeared at spoken on the show The Defining Moment Television Talk Show, take a look at the various guest that have appeared on the show which is very popular in the United Kingdom. DavidMinhPham (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. It doesn't list but appear in a citation about epilogue, and not in epilogue itself. Can you please quote a passage from that book in verbatim which mentioned Shwebomin? I am not sure about the popularity of the show, but most people interviewed, and the show itself, don't have a page on Wikipedia. Also, please stop moving the article to title it as "Crown Prince". Even Taw Phaya, who is undisputedly legitimate grandson, is not titled as such. See WP:AT. SWH^®^talk 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is you need a reliable source in which he is the primary subject of discussion, or it can even be a discussion about Burmese Royalty, but not a random page in which his name pops up (Such as Jewish Veteran page you cited). I can give you five citations, from completely reliable newspapers that mentions my friend's name. But that doesn't mean he should have a page on Wikipedia. Can you list any high quality reliable sources (For a claimant of Burmese Royalty) such as BBC, Guardian, The Irrawaddy or any words from historians, rather than small local london area newspapers which have no interest in verification. SWH^®^talk 16:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please, let us not confuse notability with whether or not Shwebomin has any legitimate claim to pretender status. Since that status is contested, assume that he is a fraud, like Anna Anderson and do a proper notability analysis. --Bejnar (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding on the reliability of sources, there is also an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Defining_Movement_and_Shwebomin My suggestion is since no RS or reputable sources have discussed about him, I think we should keep it as a draft in userpage or something, until it has a reputable source. Then, we may recreate. SWH^®^talk 03:02, 17 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No solid coverage in independent reliable sources. It could be userfied, as Soewinhan suggested, but (1) we'd have to have someone willing to take it, and (2) it would be best to delete it after a year or two should no improvements be made, since we're not an indefinite webhost. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a pretender is not grounds for automatic notability — anyone can claim to be royalty. And the question of how strong his claim is, while no doubt contentious, is irrelevant for us: the more important question is whether he's notable for being a pretender. The sources found so far (minor newspapers, trivial mentions in longer stories, and web sites with a clear bias) are not enough to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources do not add up to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This article is a mess. Perhaps a case could be made for notability, but not in its current form, poorly sourced and riddled with fact tags. Were it not a BLP, I would slap some tags on it, but if it's like this after three years, we shouldn't leave a shoddy BLP up any longer. It appears to be a weird battleground as well. Until I removed it, this article contained an internet archive link to a defunct geocities website (!!!!) as one of its most cited sources, and another editor had inserted text into the article attacking the site's author as an "alleged historian". This article should be deleted on both grounds of BLP and of WP:COMPETENCE. Gamaliel (talk) 19:33, 31 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) 00:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne City Rooftop Honey[edit]

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

promotional page for trivial local project. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ten beehives and some local coverage does seem a bit trivial. Borock (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete the media coverage merely confirms existence. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, urban apiaries are pretty cool, but there does not seem to be the sort of third-party coverage one would need to see for this to meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:30, 28 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 Penny Arcade Expo. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 10:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PAX Australia[edit]

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

I flagged this article for deletion because it duplicates the information on the Penny Arcade Expo page, is out of date, and also an orphan page. GrubLord (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:38, 24 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) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Penny Arcade Expo. IMHO, you shouldn't have gone through AfD for this one. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect, per Qwertyus. Ansh6 6 6 06:49, 27 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) 00:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telik[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Written based largely on 10-K form and company web site, almost a copyvio. Going to AFD rather than PROD or CSD for the explicit purpose of preventing re-creation until an editor can find reliable source references to demonstrate that the company is notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by nominator: If the company is notable, the article needs to be fundamentally re-written. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. No significant independent references in the article. The only coverage I found in a search was a 2006 report about one of their drugs not working. Funny, the article under discussion doesn't mention that. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article is one of around 62 mass produced from stock exchange listings. All either PRODed now, or those that have run their 7 days at AfD have been deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 31 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1+2=Paradise[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. Extremepro (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Extremepro (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I couldn't find any significant coverage in English-language reliable sources, so I'm leaning towards delete. However, when running the Japanese article through Google translate, it mentions something that translates as "harmful comics uproar", and seems to have a source relative to that. Perhaps someone who reads Japanese could look into that and see if you can find significant coverage in Japanese to support an article. Also, I don't think WP:MOVIE is really very relevant to this article, as the primary topic is a manga (comic). I'm also not sure if WP:MOVIE was intended to cover multi-episode direct to video releases (as opposed to feature films). Calathan (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a stub from a Japanese only work released over 20 years ago. Sold more than 200,000 copies for each of its 4 volumes. Toei Video did the animation, which is a major company. It was voiced by the leading actors of the time, including Yamaguchi, better known as the voice of Saotome, Ranma's father in Ranma 1/2. Though you might also known him as Kudo and/or Kaito Kid from Detective Conan. The anime was one of the few ecchi titles of the era, let alone from Toei. This article, and just about everything in the area suffers from a lack of coverage and care. Only the tokusatsu stuff from Toei Company is covered well - and that's a whole different issue. I much rather keep even the stubs than lose them when even the Anime Encyclopedia covers them - its not that any of the information is wrong, inaccurate or "not notable" because the entirety is deserving of an article because even Watanabe Junichi got his directorial start here. Real hard to explain how that matters when we are lacking an article on the right Watanabe... but do you expect TV shows from 20 years ago in Arabic to be covered well on En-wiki? I doubt it, but Angelo notability is not a criterion so please read the Japanese Wiki for more context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:24, 15 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking third-coverage by reliable third-party sources to pass WP:NOTE and WP:BK. Notability is not inherited from those who worked on the OVA, the studio that produced the OVA, or the publisher of the manga. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you are stating that selling 800,000 copies during its run makes it non-notable ASIDE from it being a key starting point for 3 individuals who worked on the adaptation included in this work and that it currently is recognized in the Anime Encyclopedia, but should not be covered on Wikipedia? Perhaps you do not understand this "inherited" aspect, but it is one of the few series of the era to push the envelope and has a presumption of non-English sources and Japanese Wikipedia coverage giving it a valid claim to notability. Unless you are planning to go to the NL and grab the pre-internet era reviews and works about it, than I think WP:NRVE covers the basics here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selling 800,000 copies is not a standard of notability on Wikipiedia.
A key starting point for 3 individuals is not a standard of notability on Wikipiedia.
"One of the few series of the era to push the envelope" is not a standard of notability on Wikipiedia, and such a claim requires proof via reliable sources.
A presumption of non-English sources requires evidence that such sources exist. Funny that you cite WP:NRVE because NRVE states "that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". Yet you are telling us we should presume that such evidence exists without proof.

24.149.119.20 (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the first comment, from Calathan, indicates, 1+2=Paradise is already noteworthy in the context of the governmental 'harmful' manga measures. A cursory online search reveals that it has been mentioned in English (Sharon Kinsella, "Adult Manga") and in Japanese (國文學: 解釈と敎材の硏究) academic literature in that context. It is a matter of checking -contemporary- print sources, which -like the two examples mentioned- may be accessible inside and outside Japan through University libraries, to expand on the article. The additional comments from ChrisGualtieri -about the sales figures and the involvement of notable staff- further reinforce the notability of the the series. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kinsella's Adult Manga has only mentioned the manga, and has not covered the manga significantly as required by WP:GNG. Sales volume is only an indication of possible notability of the subject. Extremepro (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way Kinsella mentions the work is significant. Not for the content of the work but for the context of its publication and its real world influence. Kinsella echoes what Takeuchi, one of his books is referenced in the corresponding Japanese article, and other Japanese writers indicate, such as the editors of the literary journal mentioned above and also Tomohiko Murakami. 1+2=Paradise is among those works which attracted scrutiny in the early 1990s from citizens (individuals and organisations) and lawmakers in Japan (local as well as national government) and thereby caused a change in the publishing industry as a whole. Including a change at Kodansha. There is enough of a background in that context alone, from the sources already mentioned in this discussion, to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. These materials are already sufficient to establish notability by themselves, enough to write a short article about 1+2=Paradise but they also indicate that additional -print- sources are available, it is matter of locating and citing them.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive the impertinence but I wonder If I might ask those who have so far dutifully logged this discussion in various locations if they have perhaps some of their own comments to offer on this topic? I'd like to add the information I've mentioned so far to the actual article and suggest that it might be prudent to offer some suggestions on the article's talk page in this context as well - for potential future editors - but am not inclined to do so with the deletion notice hovering at the top of the page, lest some other enterprising soul mistakes the article with the information included for the status quo from the time the deletion notice was placed and considers the article for deletion on that assumption. Am I correct in assuming that no trace of this discussion will be found on the article's talk page whenever this discussion is closed and filed somewhere else or perhaps deleted entirely? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not be discouraged by the deletion notice on top of the article. Information, especially sourced information, can be added at anytime during a deletion process. The closing editor (usually an admin) will review the general arguments given to see if there is a clear consensus to delete or keep the article. The article's state at the time will also be taken into account. If the decision is to keep the article or no consensus, then this entire discussion will be archived, with a link placed on the article's talk page. (See Talk:List of Rozen Maiden characters) If the decision is to delete the article, then the discussion will be placed in the archives. (See Wikipedia:Archived deletion discussions).

First thing to do now is to move the ANN ref to external links and to add Kinsella's book ref, along with other book refs to the article.

TL;DR: Add whatever you can and we'll decide after. Extremepro (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is an old manga & OVA, which of course due to the time it was made has very little references. But it is a notable and read/watched series. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 23:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extremepro, Thanks for the clarification and follow up edits. (I've removed the rest of my own comment here , it was already redundant when I posted it)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:51, 23 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now has enough refs. More are available, but are hard to evaluate/find due to only in Japanese/old. The manga do have ISBN which meets one of the minimum requirements of WP:BK. Another book discussing this anime is the volume with ISBN 1234819511 in the Manga - Manga Series of books. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the book now meets WP:BK #1 and #4 (partially) (manga on the Japanese government's bad manga list - subject of 4 independent and reliable sources). Extremepro (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References have improved enough to pass notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:48, 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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Sullivan[edit]

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

Political figure whose only real claims of notability are having been an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary in 1981 and having his name occasionally mentioned as a possible candidate for other offices that never actually materialized, with no real evidence provided that he's actually notable enough to get past WP:POLITICIAN. Delete; simply being a candidate in a nomination contest which he didn't win is not, in and of itself, grounds for an article if he didn't hold another notable political office at another time. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a poorly constructed article that provides overdue focus on a primary election loss. Sullivan's service as chairman of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority is a strong claim of notability and the article can be reorganized to use the available substantial coverage in his obituary in The New York Times and elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article could be rewritten to demonstrate that he was a genuinely notable chairman of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, then I'd certainly be prepared to withdraw this nomination. However, being a chair of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority is not a position that automatically makes a person notable enough for an article just because he held it — an article that doesn't claim that he did something of note in the position is not keepable just because it can be verified that he existed. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 11 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per Alansohn; significant coverage does appear to exist about his years as turnpike chairman and as a major public player in New Jersey, such as [16] [17] [18] [19] --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:04, 17 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:13, 30 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. Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. SarahStierch (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James McGibney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Closed as no consensus earlier this year, still not notable enough as most of the "notability" comes from self-promotion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This article clearly meets Wikipedia standards. 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. This guy has been in the news LOTS of times. I would also point out that McGibney has been featured on Anderson Cooper, ABC Nightline, Extra!, Dr. Phil, Maury Povich, Howard Stern, The View, Good Morning America, and Dr. Drew's Life Changers. Dead Goldfish (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So where are the sources? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try googling the dude's name. He likes to stick his face in the news every time Kate Gosselin starts crying about people being mean to her (which is kinda ironic).^[1] ^[2] Dead Goldfish (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those two sources, for example, are not about McGibney. They're about his site/group. We need multiple, reliable sources about him. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well how about you spend some of YOUR own time googling him and see what you come up with? Bullyville is a one man operation. ^[3] Its not my job to do your job for you. Dead Goldfish (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I have done the legwork, it's why I've nominated it for deletion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For future reference, it's always best to link to the sources you're citing for your argument. Burden of proof for providing sources lies with those claiming they exist. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- i agree with all of what Dead goldfish is saying. The article is backed up with multiple independent sources and ive read about this Guy on the news alot.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - per Dead Goldfish's comments. AceWriterOfFacts (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC) — AceWriterOfFacts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a person only notable for a small group of websites, so this should be incorporated into an article about his projects, or deleted. Gamaliel (talk) 04:13, 23 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why is this article constantly being relisted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead Goldfish (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard procedure for discussions with a small number of participants, to encourage more participants to offer their opinions. Gamaliel (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. thanks for the info. now I know. Dead Goldfish (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well this seems to be a controversial topic...anyway, I went through all the article's sources, along with others I found online. While many of the given sources only mention McGibney in passing, there are also a combination of multiple independent sources covering him has the main subject matter, including news articles and interviews (Namely Las Vegas Sun, Huffington Post, ABC News, Las Vegas Weekly, Anderson Cooper (archived), & Ars Technica). When combined, the coverage on his court case, activity on Twitter, and controversial company are grounds enough for notability as I see it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:21, 25 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) 00:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry D'Andrea[edit]

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

Relatively minor commentator, of only temporary interest. Articles is mainly composed of his own quotations. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, speedied (and salted!) numerous times. Hairhorn (talk) 17:47, 30 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 12:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flula Borg[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:NMUSIC. Andre666 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 22:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I disagree, and I can provide many sources showing that Mr. Borg is notable not only as a musician but in a few other areas as well. I'm currently in the process of gathering the information -- I work two jobs so I don't have much free time and I probably need a day or two to compile it all -- but I want to stake a claim, so to speak, and hopefully prevent the article from being deleted while I gather the facts. Please notify me on my talk page if any action is taken before I present my information. Thank you! -- edi(talk) 12:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've compiled the information I want to present and I hope to do it in a reasonable way. I don't want to be obnoxious with the links, but I do want to show clearly that Flula is a notable entertainer. I think there's a case to be made if we focus only on his music, but I think the case is even stronger if we consider that there are other aspects to his work as well (see WP:ENTERTAINER). I believe the links below show that the mainstream media have taken notice of Mr. Borg and that he has a significant career as an entertainer. I can provide even more information if it's needed but I feel that these are a good representative sample of the evidence. An overview:

Featured in an article on language in The Economist

Interviewed by CBS Atlanta

Interviewed by New Media Rockstars, available in both text and video form

Focus of multiple segments on Right This Minute: Leftovers, Royal Baby, Specific Love Song, Felix Baumgartner, Halloween, Skeletons in the Closet, We Did Not Start The Fires, Trashy Dress, Jeff Who Lives at Home, World History, Angry Birds of NYC, Sweet Potato Casserole, Idioms, Butter Your Butt, Rock Paper Scissors, Fish in a Barrel

Correspondent/Presenter for What's Trending:

WTF w/Flula: Bird Man, Family Feud, Zombie Apocalypse, Zuckerberg Wedding, Future Glasses, Boy Band Battle, 50 Shades of Grey, Tupac at Coachella, Kim & Kanye

Celebrity interviews: Michelle Jenneke, Part 1, Michelle Jenneke, Part 2, Diamond Dallas Page, Scary Movie 5

Special events: Thanksgiving Crafts, Comedy Gives Back

Correspondent/Presenter for Metacafe: Wondercon, This Is 40, South by South Fail, Sexy Eyes, Scary Movie 5

Correspondent/Presenter for Screen Junkies: Jeff Who Lives At Home, The Dictator, First Anniversary Show

Host/MC for College Battle of the Bands: Far too many videos to link here; see their youtube channel

Correspondent/Presenter for the Dallas Mavericks

Has appeared in multiple episodes of Auction Hunters on Spike; First episode in which he appeared

Featured on NBC's Last Call with Carson Daly

Featured on NBC's Today Show

Featured on ESPN's SportsCenter

Featured on BBC Radio by Dev Griffin

Mentioned in The Huffington Post multiple times; possibly the best known instance

Official spokesperson for the City of Allen, Texas: The Edge Skate Park, Joe Farmer Recreation Center, The Courses at Watters Creek, Allen History (and more videos currently in production)

Gibson Guitar's official spokesperson at Musikmesse 2013: Intro, Rudolf Schenker, Part 1, Rudolf Schenker, Part 2, Dinosaur DJ Dance, Subscribe to Gibson, It Tunes Itself!, Get Clicking, Let Flula Entertain You, Matt Heafy, Guitar Designs, Welcome to Gibson, Missing Guitar

Has appeared in several short films and at least one tv pilot: His IMDb page, A clip from Christmas Break, and the full pilot episode of Blow Me

Performed at South by Southwest in 2013

Has over 200,000 subscribers and 31 million views on YouTube, over 30,000 followers on Facebook, well over 20,000 followers on Twitter, and, as I type, is 4 followers away from 10,000 on Instagram.

I realize, of course, that this information needs to be in the article itself and I have been planning for some time to make significant edits to the article as soon as possible. As I mentioned, my time is limited at the moment, but I guarantee it will be done. I can and will make this an excellent article that leaves no doubt about notability.

Thanks for your time. Please contact me on my talk page if I can be of any further assistance. -- edi(talk) 10:17, 19 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm currently in the middle of a major edit and update of the article. I hope to have at least a first draft posted by tomorrow morning (US Central Time). Thanks! -- edi(talk) 21:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my edits for now (though I may make more changes after I have time to get some distance on it and have another look. If anything, I may have included too many references, but I wanted to be sure it was clear that everything I said was verifiable. Please let me know if there are still problems with the article. I can't imagine that there's anything I can't fix if it's brought to my attention. Thanks for your help. -- edi(talk) 13:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first I thought it was a keep because of the "charts" but a check at WP:GOODCHARTS does not show them there so that's not a valid criteria. I started to look at the links listed above and I was dismayed to say the least. http://www.cbsatlanta.com does not appear to be by a staff member and so fails WP:RS. http://www.economist.com article is not about Borg but about odd idioms found in English. http://www.huffingtonpost.com link does not have substantial coverage of the subject. I'm not going to continue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in English language sources that establish general notability guidelines. My mind could be changed if something exists in German? SarahStierch (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2014 (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) 00:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Downie[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria for a gymnast; has not received a medal at any of the events listed in Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Gymnastics. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry but that's irrelevant. She's an international elite gymnast, end of story. Theworldgymnast1 ^Talk 07:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia policies are quite relevant with regards to what articles are appropriate for the project. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:56, 19 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She might well become notable at the senior level within a few years, but there is no evidence for that now. Materialscientist (talk) 14:13, 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 redirect to 12 de Octubre Football Club. SarahStierch (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio Juan Canuto Pettengill[edit]

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

After a good faith search, failed to find any references that were capable of satisfying WP:N or WP:SIGCOV. While I note it was suggested on the PROD there were Paraguayan news sources, I have not been able to locate them. ManicSpider (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the football stadium of a WP:FPL-compliant team is enough for notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware of that policy. Would you be able to direct me to it please? I find it odd that it wouldn't require some significant, reliable sourcing. - ManicSpider (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's encoded in policy as much as it is standard practise. There won't be many teams who have played, or who are playing in, a WP:FPL league that don't have at least a very basic stadium article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it may not be policy, but it is certainly backed up by past AFDs and simple COMMONSENSE - a top-level stadium is notable. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 12 de Octubre Football Club, without prejudice against re-creation when sources become available. As this one's relatively recently built, it might not be that difficult for someone with access to relevant newspapers to find enough info to construct a useful article. But without any evidence of that coverage, we can't make a useful article on the topic, and there's not much point spinning one line of information out from a relatively undeveloped football club article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:39, 23 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, I agree, it should be redirected until such a time when there are sufficient sources. Andrew³²⁷ 05:27, 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 no consensus. Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. Feel free to renominate for deletion. SarahStierch (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio Fortunato Bonelli[edit]

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

After a good faith search, failed to find any references that were capable of satisfying WP:N or WP:SIGCOV. ManicSpider (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Stadium used by a professional basketball team. I don't know how notable these basketball arenas generally are though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As with the others, does a "fairly major" team having used it make it notable without any reliable, significant coverage? And if so, under what policy? If it is the team that is notable, then perhaps it can be merged with their article. -ManicSpider (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know how notable basketball courts generally are" - hence the weak keep. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 24 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 31 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) 00:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Barber Ogden[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

May fail Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All we have here is a replay of text interpreted from a tombstone inscription. The consular role that it mentions would not I think meet WP:DIPLOMAT even in the context of its time. The tomb monument is a Grade II listed building: [20] but this is not enough for the subject to inherit any notability, and multiple searches are failing to turn up anything substantial. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Nothing about the individual suggests notability: consuls aren't automatically notable, and the Society of Cincinnati was open to any American Revolutionary War officer and some of their descendents so it doesn't indicate significant achievement. Can't find additional references other than a genealogical database. Previous AfD saw no arguments for keeping, but failed to get enough responses for consensus to be demonstrated. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep The previous votes are a fair reflection of the article as it was until my recent edits - however, the subject does seem to be notable, but for reasons which were previously completely unmentioned in the article. I have added the most certain of these, but there are other possible ones if someone can sort out the more reliable sources from the less reliable ones. There are a number of strong claims made about him - as an inventor, as a pioneer of steamboats on the Ohio and Mississippi, and so on - but each of these, while supported in some sources, seems to be explicitly or implicitly denied in others. In particular, he seems to have obtained a large number of patents, but it is unclear how many of these were for his own inventions; or for things that he invented independently of but later than the original inventor; or were basically for someone else's invention (whether by agreement with the actual inventor, as with John Ericsson, or not). On matters where there may be less disagreement, but I didn't find any source with which I was entirely happy - he certainly seems to have been an aide-de-camp to Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans and involved, as an innovating businessman if not an inventor, with the development of water (and possibly rail) transport in the old Northwest. He may also have been in New Orleans, possibly as an engineer, for a while in the 1820s - there are a few indications that he may have been dealing with drainage questions, and there is a map of New Orleans that seems to be by him. And finally, by the way, searches seem to go far better with (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) than with using his full name. PWilkinson (talk) 22:30, 21 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:PWilkinson did a great job expanding this article to show notability. User:Colapeninsula, User:SarahStierch, will you reconsider? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent work. I'm happy to change my !vote. --Colapeninsula (talk) 20:08, 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. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jasin District Hospital[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. hospitals are not inherently notable. this is a small local 76 bed hospital. no coverage in Malaysia's major English language newspaper. [21] LibStar (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 10 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, SarahStierch (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is mentioned in Twentieth Century Impressions of British Malaya. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:30, 17 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The source given above does not actually appear to mention the hospital by name, but since I can't read the rest of the book, I can't be sure. I'll hold my !vote for now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not cite the sort of sources needed to pass WP:GNG, and nobody seems to be able to find any. Sandstein 12:28, 1 January 2014 (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 Diane Solomon. SarahStierch (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Feelings (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. No evidence of awards, charting or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. PROD removed without improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 10 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, czar ♔ 04:43, 17 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Diane Solomon - The singer had some success in the UK, including a spell as a television host but I can't find anything online that would flesh out this article and merit a !keep so maybe the album simply didn't chart. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:00, 27 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 as there is no consensus for outright deletion. The concern that the article is lacking independent sourcing is in the majority and has a great deal of merit, so much so that I will remove this as a separate article. However, it is common practice to provide a list of the main characters in works of fiction, and pure descriptive statements of facts about them can be covered by primary sources, in this case the game itself.

As an editorial decision, I think that the long list of secondary characters is excessive and will limit the merging to the main characters. The full content will still be available in the page history in case somebody wants to alter that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spy Fox characters[edit]

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

Unsourced fancruft. No out of universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - Acceptable as a list in the main article Spy Fox and would not make the main article overly long if merged. Per WP:CSC and also WP:FICT. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have lots of list of fictional character. Why delete this when they are rarely deleted? I dont really like it, but sadly that's not an option. Merging to Spy Fox is also acceptable. Beerest 2 talk 18:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt say OSE here. Rather its WP:OUTCOMES (even though its not explicitly mentioned there). I remember there was a Total Drama list that was the epitome of bad fancruft and it got kept. Looking through the fictional element AFD archive shows that lists like these regularly are keeped. So I think consensus is to let them stay. Beerest 2 talk 00:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both WP:OSE and WP:OUTCOMES are essays, but WP:OUTCOMES appears to be stronger here per WP:CONSENSUS. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My skim of the fictional element AFD archive shows that lists like these are also often deleted or merged, and that there does not appear to be any historical consensus on how they should be treated strong enough to weight this discussion one way or the other.Dialectric (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced. Do not merge as the material is simply a WP:COATRACK for fan cruft about the characters. WP:DOAL warns against this sort of list. Just because there are other lists doesn't mean this one should exists. It might be best if the other lists are identified to the nominator for further review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading WP:COATRACK, I see nothing in it that applies here. This is a typical list permitted by WP:CSC. See List of minor characters in Dilbert which is explicitly permitted by WP:CSC, but which by your standard is a WP:COATRACK for WP:FANCRUFT and should also be deleted. So, if you want similar lists nominated, then the List of minor characters in Dilbert (actually List of Dilbert characters where it was merged a while back) should be the first one nominated. WP:AOAL favors lists of this type, particulary within articles. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced, no indication of notability of any of the individual list entries, and notability is not inherited. No indication this "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources," per the notability criteria Stand-alone lists. I agree with the above assessment that this is listcrufty, and though currently outside the scope of this afd, List of gadgets in the Spy Fox series and List of locations in the Spy Fox series have all of the same issues.Dialectric (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSC clearly states that ALL members of a list may be NON-notable. The list only needs to be part of a notable subject (either as an in article list or a separate list article). Per WP:CSC, the only two possible options are Keep or Merge unless the 'main' article is shown to be non-notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LISTN - as I wrote, no evidence that this content has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so no evidence of notability. Minor Dilbert characters likely have been discussed as a group in RS. Are you really arguing that all content in any notable work can be arbitrarily included in unreferenced list articles under the guideline you reference? Does it seem reasonable that every notable novel or film also have a separate 'list of locations in' article?Dialectric (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize that a video game is not a book or video, but it is still a work of fiction, so I believe WP:FICTIONPLOT applies here. It allows fictional elements in a fictional work to be sourced from the primary work. Per WP:PSTS, no secondary source is needed unless there is "interpretation". We are not here to decide what is reasonable for all articles. We are here to decide what is reasonable for this article. We are not making policy but instead simply applying it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This list of characters meets the criterion of having "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". PC Magazine says that Spy Fox in "Dry Cereal" has "funny characters" here. The Software Encycopedia contains the sentence "All of the world's dairy cows are missing & the characters in [Spy Fox in "Dry Cereal"] are called to help" here. Microtimes says that Spy Fox 3: "Operation Ozone" has "a wide cast of humorous characters" here. This article is not sourced yet, but it could and should be. Neelix (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So a couple vague phrases like "the characters are funny" are enough to keep a whole list of them? That's really stretching it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A review of Spy Fox in "Dry Cereal" on IGN says that "its characters... have withstood the test of time" here, an Adventure Gamers review says that the "humourous animation" of the characters "makes the game world feel visually alive" [22], and the Los Angeles Times says that the game "involves a cast of zany characters" here. Plenty more citations could be provided for individual characters, but I think six sources should be sufficient to demonstrate that the list "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Neelix (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are all incidental mentions, of a sentence or two at most, which would not be sufficient to establish notability for another software article, and it is unclear why lists of non-notable items should be held to a lesser standard.Dialectric (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is rare that a group of characters is discussed as a group for more than a sentence or two in a given secondary source; most discussion tends to be of individual characters. In addition to the six sources listed above, here are some more: an Allgame review here, a SuperKids Software review here, a Metacritic review here. Neelix (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone linked CSC above but there is quite literally no sourcing available for these characters and as such there is nothing to merge. Most of the characters in the list are minor and don't even show in searches of WP:VG/RS. The major characters are worth mentioning in the prose of their respective articles if and only if they have sourcing. This article doesn't need to be redirected or merged, but deleted for want of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Let me know if you dig up offline sources that would change my mind. czar ♔ 15:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are reviews in IGN, Metacritic, Allgame, and PC Magazine, all of which appear on WP:VG/RS. Neelix (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there were no secondary sources, both WP:PRIMARY and WP:FICTIONPLOT allow this type of "fictional universe" info to only have a primary source (i.e., the game including its guide/instruction book and such) as long as there is no "interpretation". WP:VG/RS#Video games also allow the game to be used as a source. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:23, 23 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources on which this article could be based, per WP:GNG and WP:V. General statements such as "the series has funny characters" are obviously not a sufficient basis for content of this level of detail, but could at most be used to reference a similarly general statement in the main article about the series. Sandstein 12:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Arkansas State Indians football team[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NSPORTS and GNG. I couldn't find anything about the entity on the web. Alex^{discussion ★} 02:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.~~ Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed this entry from the Football delsort; the topic is about American football. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally Division I team seasons are considered notable. There most certainly would be plenty of off-line sources for the 2004 season to establish notability and pass WP:GNG. The lack of online sources presently available is not an issue for me in this case. Personally I wouldn't create a season article for the program, but that's personal taste more than anything else. WP:NSPORTS does not apply because that is a guideline for individuals and not for seasons or events. I can find no policy or guideline reason to delete the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSPORTS may not apply, but WP:EVENTCRIT, and WP:GNG are still relevant, and the article doesn't seem to pass. Alex^{discussion ★} 18:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I noted before, NCAA Division I football programs (especially FBS or "Division I-A" programs) tend to pass notability standards, including WP:EVENTCRIT. We can look specifically at the phrase "widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources" and realize that this team played #4 LSU, #17 Mizzou, and traveled to Idaho among its other games. Two ranked teams playing the same team are often used for comparisons in the voting process for the various polls plus the coverage of even just those two games would have spanned from ESPN, Sports Illustrated, USA Today, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and a large number of other regional and local outlets. We're looking at nationwdie exposure at that point (which is expected for a Div I program) These also would be enough to pass WP:GNG as a stand-alone notability achievement. That these articles haven't been archived online as of yet is no suprise to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Paul McDonald. An NCAA Division I-FBS football season is an easy keep. Plenty of historical precedent to keep an article like this one. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:00, 18 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as per Paul McDonald. Plenty of sources are available for Division I FBS teams such as this one. Brian Reading (talk) 16:36, 28 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 withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth About Lies (film)[edit]

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

Demonstrates why WP:CRYSTAL exists. This speculatory article ended up with only one acceptable source which is now 30 months out-of-date. Despite this film supposedly being due for release this month, there has been barely even a hint of rumour about its status more recent than a year ago. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - In an interesting turn-about, the original article has been BOLDly replaced with an up-to-date article about a different film with the same name. I hold this to have fulfilled the deletion process. The new article is certainly acceptable so the AFD has no reason to continue. Well done, MichaelQSchmidt for an inspired piece of BOLD editing! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources show movie is being filmed, no reason to delete article because it will be recreated soon. Delete Notability not established. Borock (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if kept, this should be moved to The Truth About Lies. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the one ref appears to have been nothing more than a rumour. Keep for now given that it appears to meet WP:NFF and is headed in the right direction per WP:NYF. (Mark, that's funny assuming you meant it as a joke.) VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm wondering if this was ultimately a dropped project or if they replaced the director and two lead actors. I can't find anything about the plot in the ScreenDaily article and that's really the only mention of this director or Piper acting in this film. I'm guessing that it was dropped, as Piper is still has a pretty sizable fan following that would be mentioning any developments in the fan forums if there were anything out there. The complete lack of forum chatter past the SD announcement is pretty telling. I'm wondering though, if it was transformed into this movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point. Things have changed since that source was first writen in 2011. Seethis. I have addressed that earlier gossipy information for this finished film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything to show this movie is still in any stage of planning. For that matter, I couldn't find anything to show that the other film by the same name is particularly noteworthy either, so even if it was made into that (which I doubt) the other film wouldn't pass GNG either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good- good job Schmidt! Keep it now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient sources now. Good recovery, even if it seems to be a different film (chuckle).Delete but do not snow close: allow time for deeper searching. I searched very far and wide, but I wonder if Cirt, with the even deeper search-fu, could find anything about it. --Lexein (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Lexein. If it's got Billie Piper in it, it's gotta be good! I have a spotty Internet connection at the moment so I can't help you out there right now, I'll try to see about researching this at a later point in time. Happy Holidays, — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Having been shot in New York the one 2011 source is A) very old, and B) quite inaccurate. So let's change directions why don't we? Keep and allow improvements, or Incubate for a short time. Deletion is really the last resort. We have notables involved and the thing is apparently completed and in announced as in post production. It serves the greater good to allow it to be returned to mainspace once it is released and the subject of media attention. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the earlier article contained information that was poorly sourced and misleading. The improved version is something upon which we CAN build. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that London-based "Motion Picture House" planned to make a film by this title, and THAT was the topic of a planned film spoken about in the article first brought to AFD. But it seems that one died aborning... Motion Picture House no longer lists it among their projects... and in the intervening time another film by the same name has been completed in New York. The original author started his article in good faith and based solely upon that one source. Since it speaks about a "project-in-development" only, it would have failed WP:NFF at that time. It was easier to modify this article to be about the MADE film and not the speculated one. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems the most plausible explanation. The original film described was UK-based and had different producers, director and cast. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per excellent research by MichaelQSchmidt, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:29, 27 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. A redirect can be created by WP:BOLD, with possible subsequent discussion, but I will not create it myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OSUNIX[edit]

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

(Defunct?) software which doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OpenSolaris. I remember reading about OSUNIX some years (it had a website that looked like an anime fanzine rather than an OS website) ago but it never got off the ground. I'm surprised to read that it had support from Software in the Public Interest, but that alone does not confer notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly for a even a redirect to be worthwhile, it would need WP:SECONDARY sources (for citation) in the target article, which should actually be Illumos. OSUNIX seems to have been is a typical FOSS spat—a fork threat that didn't even materialize. [23] D'Amore blogged about it in response [24] (as he was the main target of the OSUNIX folks' criticism), but no independent sources seem to have covered the incident so it's not only non notable but would probably be even be WP:UNDUE to mention it just from those primary sources. (How many email/blog spats have involved Linus? Do they all go into the article on Linux?) Looking at [25] it seems all that ever happened with OSUNIX was a one-man version 0.0.1 in 2009 followed by someone using the list for a tantrum in 2011. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:13, 25 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.