< 31 January	2 February >

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. I am cautious about speedy deletion of hoaxes, but the total failure of all checks makes clear that this SPA-written article is indeed one. An NY school with 320 staff, 4,000 pupils and state-of-the-art technology, but no website, and no internet footprint? Pull the other one. Congratulations to Bleaney (talk), the only one to spot it in over four years. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hilfiger High School[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources to confirm that this school exists. Bleaney (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. Searches only get hits on Wikipedia mirrors. ED.GOV lists no such school in New York. It should be there if it has been open since 2008. This supposed IB school is not found on IBO.ORG. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything I found via Google are Wikipedia mirrors. This also returns no hits and a Google Books search also returned no results. Might be a joke inspired by this product. Searching for the alleged motto like here returns only Wikipedia mirrors. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In spite of our practice to keep high schools, this school is absolutely unverifiable and does not even appear to have its own website. Unless the article is wrongly named, or the school has changed its name, there is nothing to prove its existence, or that it existed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G3 - Main Google searches won't always be helpful so I searched Google News but with no avail. There isn't any reliable evidence to support Tommy Hilfiger's association or to support a redirect so until sources show this actually existed, I'm tagging the article as a hoax. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 4 February 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. Nothing really to merge, all info is already at Sea Monsters (TV series). Will recreate as a redirect to The Rime of the Ancient Mariner J04n(talk page) 12:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancient Mariner[edit]

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

Not notable, also will confuse searches for the poem Sphenacodon (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Confusions can be dealt with but I also believe it is not notable enough for a WP article. --E4024 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the fictional boat doesn't have a life outside the program it seems to me, nor should it have an article outside of the program - I would say merge, but really what is there to merge? ---- _nonsense ferret 23:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no reason to split this stub out into a separate article--not notable on its own, and article on TV series already contains any worthwhile info. And do not convert to redirect, as per nominator, is more likely cause confusion than to be helpful. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content to the show article, and then retarget this to the poem, as the PRIMARYTOPIC. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wi-Fi First[edit]

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

Notability and a lack of WP:RS. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 23:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the two sources quoted in the article, the Scratch site does not use the term "wifi first" that I could find, and the Lowenstein article only gives it a passing mention. I tried searching for the term, but found no hits for "wifi first" as an identifiable concept, except for the Lowenstein article. The topic appears to fail notability guidelines WP:GNG, but I am happy to be convinced otherwise if others have better success at finding reliable sources. --Mark viking (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. It is essentially a network type preference order, and I honestly don't see how this is ever going to be more than an extended diciotnary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After some search on Google News and other places, I have found that no coverage exists, in depth, to prove that this topic is notable. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkis Torosyan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MILPEOPLE criteria. (Although he boasts to have sunk "the first warship by artillery fire" in Gallipoli defence, that claim is reported by his own memoirs and only re-reported by other sources with reference to his own claim.) On the other hand, Google Books searches bring several references to "Sarkis Torosyan" but looks like not much is about this one. E4024 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: False positives aside, the article's current sourcing seems indicative that this person "received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." Even his own memoirs were edited by someone else. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet another bad faith deletion proposal by E4024 which adds to the now dozens of Armenian/Greek articles he has tried to delete. The article has made it clear that it is according to his memoirs that he sunk the first British warship. He was decorated not only by Ottoman forces, but by French and English military forces as well. Turkish historians have tried to claim that his memoirs were a sham and in fact, some even tried to state that Sarkis Torosyan never even existed (his family members have been found). I believe the nature of this deletion proposal is no different. Please see the deletion proposals of Miran Pastourma and Hovnatanyan family for more details. There are might I add important sources of information regarding his merit and accreditation as an Ottoman captain during the Dardanelles Campaign. War minister Enver Pasha issued a edict that awarded him a medal stating:

Kayseri Sancağı Everek kazasından Ohan oğlu Serkis Torosyan. Kolordu 21, Fırka 46 Sahra Topçu Alayı Tarassud Zâbiti ve Tabur Kumandan Vekili / [Doğum] 307
Romanya toprağının işgali kararı üzerine taarruz eden müttefik ordularımıza iltihâkı için tayin olunan 51. Fırka olup mezkûr fırka Sahra Topçu Alayı 1. Tabur Kumandanlığı’na tayin olunan kolordumuzun 46. fırka sahra topçu alayının gözlem subayı Yüzbaşı Serkis Bey mezkûr Romanya cephesinin harp meydanında cesaret ve fedâkârâne harp ederek, [...] yaralandığı halde tekrar vazifesi başında bulunarak [...] müttefik ordularımızın ileri doğru taarruz hareketlerine kolaylık göstermiş olduğundan Alamanya, Avusturya ve Bulgar hükümetlerinin harp madalyasına nâil edilmiş olmakla keza Osmanlı Devleti harp madalyasından ‘Osmaniye’ nişanına da nâil olmuş olmakla işbu tasdikname [kendisine] verildi.
28 Mayıs 333 [28 Mayıs 1917]

And heres another decree of "thanks" to Sarkis Torosyan from the War Ministry of the Ottoman Empire:

- Osmanlı Ordu-yu Hümâyunu Başkumandanlığı Vekâleti
- Kayseri Sancağı Everek Kazasından Topçu Yüzbaşısı Ohan oğlu Serkis Torosyan - Doğum 307 [1891-1892]
Ordumuzun ağır topçu 6. Alay batarya kumandanlarımızdan Yüzbaşı Serkis Bey Çanakkale harbi esnasında Ertuğrul tabyasının kumandanı olup 6 ve 12 Şubat 330 [19 ve 25 Şubat 1915] tarihinde boğaza doğru hücum eden düşman harp vapurlarına karşı cesaret ve fedâkârâne harp ederek bir düşman harp vapurunun tahribiyle diğer bir harp vapurunu dahi zedelemiş olduğu ve keza Rumeli Hamidiye tabyasının kumandanlığını üzerine alarak 5 Mart 331 [18 Mart 1915] tarihinde düşman harp vapurlarının boğaza doğru tehdit hücumlarına karşı cesaret ve fedâkârâne harp ederek diğer bir düşman harp vapurunun tahribiyle mumaileyh [adı geçen] mecrûh olduğu [yaralandığı] ve ordu-yu hümâyuna [Osmanlı ordusuna] göstermiş olduğu cesaret ve fedâkârânesinden dolayı ordu namına mumaileyhe [adı geçene] karşı beyan-ı teşekkürle 3 Kanun-ı evvel 330 [16 Aralık 1914] tarihinden itibaren yüzbaşı kıdemine terfii ile Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmaniye harp madalyasına nâil olmuş olmakla işbu tasdikname mumaileyh yedine [adı geçenin kendisine] i’tâ kılındı [verildi]. 5 Mayıs 331 [18 Mayıs 1915]. Başkumandan Vekili ve
Harbiye Nâzırı Enver

This alone proves his notability. However, I'm sorry that it's in Turkish. In fact, it's in Ottoman Turkish so it might be even more difficult to translate. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly request you, once and for all, not to repeat the "bad faith" claim once again. That is a Personal Attack. Simply limit yourself to express your argument about "deleting" or "keeping" the article. That is enough for WP. Do not worry, articles are deleted only on consensus. --E4024 (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the articles you proposed for deletion have been my articles, let alone the fact that you have been trying to ban me indefinitely at least 3 times. Consequently, I have every right to assume bad faith. Also, you should look at yourself in the mirror and not call me a racist or nationalist either and stop poking fun of my mentioning of "honest mistakes". Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. I repeat: Limit yourself to argue on the article. 2. I asked you before to show me where and when I called you a "racist" and I am still waiting to learn. 3. As regards what you call "banning indefinitely" (3 times!) you must be referring to the one SPI case I asked about User: Proudbolsahye. (Which were the other two "user names" for whom I asked SPIs and you take personally? :-) --E4024 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No we will talk about your activity because it gives us an elaborate display as to why this is once again bad faith deletion proposal. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourcing IN article and per additional ones provided byUser:Proudbolsahye (thank you). Notability, even if only to the Ottoman Empire, is historically notable enough for us at the English language Wikipedia. We do not require someone born in 1891 and whose feat took place in 1915 in Turkey to be remain in the news or have continued English-language coverage in 2013. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my deletion proposal, only because I am not here to receive insults from angry article "owner"s; especially if those insults are added to injury. Someone please close this discussion. If anyone else also thinks the article should be deleted that user may open another one. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But more importantly a word to all to try to keep the tone civil and non-personal, and to agf, so as not to lose contributors for the wrong reason.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Sarkis Torossian or Torosian, like I had suggested on the talk page some time ago. There are far more hits for Torossian than Torosyan on Google Books. Jackal 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by a very substantial margin. - Proudbolsahye have any of these AfD attempts actually succeeded? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of his deletion proposals towards my articles have succeeded. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - @E4024: please read WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT again. Takabeg (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask the admin or experienced user who will close this AfD discussion to please add the lacking "signatures" in the thread before closing it, as I will need "diffs" from this discussion for an SPI request. --E4024 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bot or editor may do that, but in the interim you can see all of there here. --Epeefleche (talk) 14:31, 2 February 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOON and 8[edit]

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

The more I look at this article, the more I'm convinced that it should be deleted. It is speculation, full of peacock terms, and might even be a hoax. I cannot find any reputable source that this film even exists. A prod was previously contested by the author. Bensci54 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that this film has reached principal photography stage so per WP:NFF we don't really need to consider anything else - ---- _nonsense ferret 23:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is zero coverage in reliable sources. Regardless of anything WP:NFF may say, it fails WP:GNG completely. -- 14:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being TOO SOON. A sense of peacock would usually be a matter for regular editing and not be a deletion rationale. But what IS a valid rationale is this project is not yet spoken of in reliable sources. Until it is, it should not be back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 14:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles County Sales Tax, Measure R (2008)[edit]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

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

Localized bill with no effect outside the immediate county Delete Secret ^account 21:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The bill has no effect outside Los Angeles, the article itself has no contribution to the encyclopedic value of WP, the article is also restricted on info because it has a limited coverage by external sources, there is nothing more that can be added into it. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - It is absolutely absurd to delete this article. Measure R received over 2 million votes and has been among the most contentious political issues in America's second-largest city. The bill has enormous ramifications for all of LA County (nearly 10 million people) impacting land use, transit, and environmental issues. There is plenty that can be added to this article including a discussion of the evolution of local transit issues and the measure's impact on construction projects. It should also be noted that there are many wikipedia articles on local ballot mesures that impact much smaller constituencies.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which are? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and most of those probably meets deletion guidelines as well. Secret ^account 23:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article about legalizing marijuana in Arizona for one. LA County's population is larger than the entire state of Arizona by about 4 million people. In fact every single article linked to this article should be less notable than Measure R, considering they all effect a much smaller number of people. That goes the same for any article about ballot proposition in dozens of states.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "The bill has no effect outside Los Angeles"...which is one of the largest cities in the world. The LACMTA is the third-most ridden transit agency in the country. There is enough referencing in this article to pass GNG, and even more sourcing is out there. There is also too much in this article to make merger an option. Oh, and all the stuff Jkfp2004 said. p b p 22:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are hundreds of bills that are proposed in Los Angeles, and many other cities and states that affects millions of people, but simply don't affect the area outside it in any impacting way. Bills that affect local transportation is a common thing, and this measure doesn't look no different the rest of those bills that happen in every election. The only thing how this would meet GNG was if it had a wider affect on the state and nation as a whole, which I don't see any evidence of. Secret ^account 23:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all this is not a proposed bill. It was a voter approved proposition that is now law. Secondly, there are many articles which have little impact on outlying areas but meet GNG because of their importance to the local area affected, such as the Proposition 65 article. The standard being held for this article is beyond the standard for almost any other piece of legislation. Even if this imaginary standard was the correct one, this article would stil meet GNG as Measure R was instrumental in ensuring the success of the state's High Speed Rail project, and represents a nationwide shift in attitudes about mass transit and urbanism.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Secret, you have to ask two questions:

Does it pass GNG?
Is there significant coverage that would preclude a merger?

If the answer to both questions is "yes", than the only policy-based vote is Keep. The preponderance of bills/measures/propositions you cite above don't pass GNG. This one does. I'm not seeing why national impact is required for GNG p b p 02:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Well can you provide sources outside the LA Times that provides further evidence of the notability of this measure? Secret ^account 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, there are already sources outside the LA Times that are IN THE ARTICLE. I can pretty clearly tell that, while WP:BEFORE isn't mandatory, it is encouraged, and you haven't done it. Had you done it, you would have found that it passes GNG even more than it currently does p b p 21:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhh... I did see the sourcing before nominating, WP:AGF, other than the LA Times two sources is the bill themselves, one source is a dead link from a typical Press Release magazine on transportation, the last source is clear WP:ROUTINE coverage that states that voters are ready to vote on the measure, that is not indication of notability. Secret ^account 00:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article now contains additional references from the Huffington Post, LA Daily News, NBC Southern California, and the Pasadena Star-News. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage found in multiple reliable sources. Please see those from the LA Times, and elsewhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have pointed out, this isn't just some small insignificant village with a small population. This is something that affects millions of people. It has gotten sufficient coverage. Dream Focus 13:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep but rename. I have updated the article and added additional references, demonstrating significant coverage from multiple (and not just local) publications. Note to above discussants: coverage is the point here, not the fact that Los Angeles is a big county. I also added the result of last November's vote on extending the measure (couldn't any of you eager "keep" voters from the Article Rescue Squadron even be bothered to do that?) The name, however, is inappropriate - overly long and messy. Looking at the style for similar articles such as California Proposition 65 (1986) and California Proposition 2 (2008), I suggest this article be moved to Los Angeles Measure R (2008). --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per keep rationales above, especially those pointing to RS coverage. That, and not an editor's view as to whether it has impact outside its locale, is what matters. As to rename -- not an issue for AfD. I would suggest raising it for discussion on the article talkpage.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probir Gupta[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, failing all 6 elements of WP:ARTIST. There are social networking sites for artists and one gallery that seems to mention him and that's about it, so he fails WP:GNG as well. Toddst1 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with both observations in nom: one gallery mentioned him, but fails all 6 elements of WP:ARTIST.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 6 February 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. original research and synthesis J04n(talk page) 17:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of money and state[edit]

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

There are some valid sources used, but most of these instances constitute violations of the original research policy. — goethean 21:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article fails to establish that there is any clearly-defined meaning for this phrase. The lede states that the subject is not the same as free banking, but it provides no positive exposition of its meaning. Instead, the narrative is replete with (naive and corrigible) WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and non-RS citations, largely to ideas and subjects that are only tangential to the purported subject of the article. Numerous citations fail verification. Despite numerous tags clearly indicating its flaws, the article has not been improved. Various searches fail to show widespread use of this term, and if any WP:RS literature on the subject is found, such information belongs in other articles, e.g. Free Banking. Separation of money and state does not warrant a separate article. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fiat money. The basis for the "proposed abolition" is that the state is involved in monetary affairs, e.g, has created money via fiat. As the "proposal" (actually a criticism of monetary policy) is fairly recent, much/some of the present article stuff can be fitted in as a new section. – S. Rich (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Srich, the state is also involved in a metallic standard, in central banking and clearing, in legal tender laws, and in other aspects of money-related affairs. I'm not convinced about a redirect to fiat money. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another article? I suggested the best I could find, but would welcome another.-- – S. Rich (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the term is defined, how can we know where to redirect it? As it now stands, it may as well redirect to Goodyear Blimp as far as I can tell. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. or possibly, delete tand then redirect, because there is nothing in the history worth preserving. This is an attempt to accumulate quotations to prove a point, not a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Admitedly this article deserves improvement. Have you looked at the talk page? I have posted the explanation as to how the topic differs from free banking, and suggestions on ways to improve it. It would have been interesting for a discussion to occur there. In a nutshell, here is the rationale:

The proposed abolition is distinct from free banking in two ways. Politically, it addresses the issue of monetary sovereignty, granted to the individual as a way to enhance his liberty; it is not a mere economical debate. But most importantly, as Hayek argues in The Denationalization of Money, legal tender laws and banking licenses may be abolished (i.e. free banking instituted), but if the government still mints an official currency, and uses it to levy taxes, it benefits from an undue monopolistic advantage. Therefore money/state separation implies free banking, but the opposite isn't true (i.e. money/state separation is a hypernym of free banking). This is evident as free banking has existed before, whereas money/state separation hasn't (i.e. governments have always minted their currency, even when private institutions were authorized to do so as well). The most notable source for that argument is Hayek, but it has been made by many other authors (Rothbard, Greco, Riegel, Dominique Carreau, etc.)

The phrasing has been used to refer to church/state separation. See Chapter 8 of This book for a typical example. The reference is also made by Hayek, which he develops it in Good Money (Part 2).

Some authors have cited the money/state separation in the context of alternative currencies (Bitcoin especially). See here for one example.

Also, please remind yourself of WP:IMPERFECT and reassess the argument that the article is worthless. The content may very well be (I'm neither proficient in English nor an experienced Wikipedia editor yet), but the proposal is indeed relevant and notable. Accordingly, I have solicited help to complete and source the article further. Finally, please review this and this before making up your mind.

PS: I will shorty try to post better constructed and sourced article content. But again, input/suggestions by experienced editors would be invaluable.

PS2: I am still working on better organizing the sources, and including other points of views (as I've suggested in the talk page). Here are some two other examples of this issue being notably adressed: here or here

Alfy32 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My apologies the Woods ref I meant to cite is his book Rollback. An abstract can be found here. Alfy32 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austrian School. The term "separation of money and state" gives very few hints on google books and google news. I have heard separation of economy and state from Ayn Rand in an interview with Mike Wallace in the 50s (its on youtube). But still, the term itself isn't enough widespread to be considered notable for its own article. The economists who want or wanted this are sympathetic to the Austrian school of economics, so thats why it should be redirected there. I also remind everyone not to WP:BITE.--Neo139 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neo, this article does not describe a position which is a dominant view of Austrian School economists. In fact, many current Austrians favor government adoption of a gold standard, of prohibitions on fractional reserve banking, and other government involvement in monetary affairs. For that reason, it is not appropriate to redirect to Austrian school any more than it would be appropriate to redirect to some other group (for example "Americans" or "Men") a subset of whom may have been associated with certain ideas. I have voted for Delete, but if you wish to consider a redirect, please look at The Denationalization of Money, an article which I and others recently voted to keep on WP. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's true some (not all) austrian economists have argued in favor of separation, but they are not the only ones. Objectivists have hinted at it too (as you correctly mention, although Rand rather advocates a gold standard), but also electronic currency advocates, anarchists, or simply free-market commentators (e.g. Leggett, Riegel, Forbes, etc.). The topic is adjacent to classical liberalism, monetary sovereignty, free banking, ... but it is equivalent to none of these. As per the notability argument I don't understand given the numerous reliable sources that exist (and more to come, I'm still going through other sources to cite them appropriately). I acknowledge it is a marginal claim, but notable nonetheless (over 60k Web hits and over 100 book hits on the exact sentence). Again I think WP:IMPERFECT does not call for outright deletion. Alfy32 (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are more than enough reliable sources to establish the notability of this concept. The debate over the proper scope of government is one of the most important debates. Numerous notable thinkers have argued that regulating or printing money should not be the responsibility of government. The article provides plenty of reliable sources...yet this article was still listed for deletion. Why? Because of OR? You don't delete a notable concept because it might have OR. What you do is assume good faith and post specific concerns on the article's talk page. --Xerographica (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err, yes you do delete articles that are Original Research or Synthesis. WP is an encyclopedia not a soapbox. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (without prejudice) - Another effort to stitch together through original research and synthesis a concept which folks feel deserves to be notable but which does not presently exist as a coherent topic in the literature, other than as a vivid slogan. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I second Orange Mike's assessment. This looks like OR.Capitalismojo (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Alfy32 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Alfy32 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OrangeMike and WP:TNT. This is a hot mess. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Quilling[edit]

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

Non notable college basketball player - doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NBASKETBALL (contested PROD) NtheP (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As failing WP:GNG. Note that a duplicate of this article was also created, which I tagged for speedy as A10 to leave just this one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and extremely silly in parts. Hairhorn (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NBASKETBALL or GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 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. Feel free to discuss a merge or move on the article's talkpage. J04n(talk page) 17:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Trebus[edit]

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

Not notable enough - Only appeared in a TV programme. Rrose Selavy (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:GNG. I added some references to the article, with some obituaries and a discussion on him in a book on hoarding; and he was also the subject of multiple BBC TV programs, with appearances in A Life of Grime and an hour-long special Mr Trebus: A Life of Grime[1]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Have you counted the Wikipedia articles for people who "Only appeared in a TV programme" (try and include the fictional characters and puppets)? Worth keeping for John Peel's laconic narration alone. ~~p.s. "Rrose", I am the last person to want to pull rank... but 1,431 edits in nearly seven years? really??~~Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What relevance does that have? Why don't you count up the number of edits the other person who suggested deletion of this page as well in the article's talk page? Pathetic. Some of us don't live just to edit Wiki and have other things to do. An irrelevant point like the one about John Peels narrative. Rrose Selavy (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a good job you have a sense of humour. Some of us don't live just to RfD Wiki articles. C'est la vie. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't bring the issue up to score some kind of irrelevant point then try to imply you were only "joking" anyway. Rrose Selavy (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. That's what I was doing. Anything else I have to do? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Stop digging when more than one person has called you out for something clearly unnecessary. C'est la vie. Rrose Selavy (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is no place for humour at this page, so I have struck out the comments which seem to have troubled you so much. I apologise further if you think my flippant comment about the excellent narration by John Peel was irrelevant. Another failed attempt at levity, I'm afraid. I wonder how many episodes of the series, which featured Trebus, you have watched? I'll also ask again about how many Wikipedia articles exist for people who have "only appeared in a TV programme". p.s. for your information, Volunteer Marek has made 36,805 edits, over nearly 8 years - but we all seem to agree that's irrelevant. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw them when they were broadcast. The fact is, appearing in a TV programme is not sole criteria for having an article of your own, just because many others have articles of their own - is once again irrelevant. Every reality TV participant, even prominent ones, do not automatically get a wiki page. It could as suggested be included in an article about the program but as I have already said below, that article doesn't currently exist and the article for the series that he first appeared in has no references or sources.

Rrose Selavy (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it's obvious from the "presence of multiple secondary sources", that the simple appearance in the programme is not being used as the sole criterion. By the way, would it be useful if we all used standard indenting conventions, edit summaries and chronological posting here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are "multiple secondary sources" for countless individuals on Wiki. That doesn't mean they should automatically get their own page , when for example it might now be merged with another. Rrose Selavy (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as even if I'm not fond of keeping this article because his claim to fame isn't that notable. However, considering the presence of multiple secondary sources, it passes WP:GNG. Similarly, your comment on Rrose's edit count is highly irrelevant and rather condescending, Martinevans. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now struck out this comment, Sang'gre Habagat, as it seems to have caused so much unnecessary consternation. I'm not quite sure why, if this article was moved, all of the multiple secondary sources could not be moved with it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Mr Trebus: A Life of Grime. I think the BBC episode may be notable, unlike the person. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If most or all of the relevant info on him could perhaps be merged or integrated into a programme page but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Life_of_Grime has no sources and no one has yet felt the programme that featured him notable enough to make a wiki article as it currently doesn't exist. Rrose Selavy (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If most of the content could be kept, then why not. That seems a sensible compromise, Piotrus. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn I made that suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The multiple obituaries in major national newspapers substantiate notability. Possible renaming or merging is an editorial matter that can be discussed on the talk page, but deletion is not required. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW close per WP:SK (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 10:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baselios Poulose Second College[edit]

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

I am struggling to find how this college may meet the notability guideline. I couldn't find any third party reliable sources covering the topic. I could be proven wrong, of course. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. As long as a school, especially a college or high school, is confirmed to exist, then it is deemed notable. Article could use some cleanup however. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Narutolovehinata5 states, the rule here is that all colleges and high schools are inherently notable. This one even offers graduate and postgraduate degrees, so it fits.Edwardx (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified tertiary educational institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep postgraduate degree-awarding institutions for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian institutions because, unlike their US equivalents for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, many do not have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched. TerriersFan (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per convention with these schools.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:14, 6 February 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 g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"invisible dog"[edit]

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

Promotional Appearance Jackson Peebles (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jetix. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jetix (Arab world)[edit]

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

Absolutely no reference for its existence, and PROD was removed without explanation. 117Avenue (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jetix lists a lot of these articles: some are now redirects but if we could come to a general decision/bulk AfD on the rest, that might be nice. I don't think this is notable, but haven't searched Arabic-language sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Same situation as Disney XD, lots of region specific articles being spawned without sufficient content or sources available to support a dedicated article. While some of the Disney XD articles were kept, there was sufficient unique content on that isotope of the channel with sufficient sources to reference and/or some other information (such as coownership or some other deal) that business and other press sources were available to use as references. That doesn't seem to be the case here. RadioFan (talk) 15:01, 30 January 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) 18:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Pretty much what they did with Jetix (Israel), by making a note on the Jetix page that it was discontinued and replaced with Disney XD. I didn't find any significant sources in Arabic. ~dee^(talk?) 20:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2000[edit]

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

These "Swimsuit Issue" television specials from Sports Illustrated are an annual tradition, it seems; however there is nothing notable about the individual specials themselves, including this one - the only one with an article - and the article makes no attempt to assert notability through content or coverage. The article is essentially just a statement that the special happened. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I found on Google were a bunch of YouTube clips and Amazon links. There's already a section on those videos in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue if it needs a mention. Funny ^Pika! 21:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 21:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 21:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. No evidence of notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:23, 8 February 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triangular rule[edit]

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

The topic does not seem to be WP:notable, even the reference supplied did not mention it in the index (I was unable to check the text), and I didn't find any vaguely similar topic using any of the bolded names using Google except for 'triangular rule' which had a use as something rather different - it is a way of numerically approximating an area given by polar coordinates. Dmcq (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe speedy delete under criterion CSD G3. This looks like a hoax. I could find no references for the triangular rule in the context of numerical integration, at all, and the nom has verified that it does not appear as a significant concept in the single cited reference. The formula gives nonsense results; the integral of y=1 on the x-axis from 0 to 1 (i.e., a unit square) would have an area of 1/2 in this approximation. --Mark viking (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete as hoax or at least something made up. It's impressive how random the GBook hits are, and there's no excuse for no such hits for a mathematical concept. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The single reference does not contain the term "triangular rule", and the claimed alternate name "Rasmussen-Watts rule" does not appear on Google, Google Books or Google Scholar. Deltahedron (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total nonsense, very likely hoax. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Delete I have found some references in academic maths papers on numerical analysis to 'triangular integration rules' - ~~I'll have a look for further details, but at the moment I'd say it doesn't look like a hoax to me.~~ ---- _nonsense ferret 00:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I understand the scepticism - I have looked at the history of the page and I didn't really understand the justification for some of the changes such as removing the graph - it seems that the various editors disagreed entirely about how this rule was meant to be calculated. I've searched for a copy of the book referred to, but can't seem to get a hold of it due to its age. I do think there is a big question mark over notability even if it isn't a hoax. ---- _nonsense ferret 21:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Yeah it is a delete for me, there is insufficient material to sustain an article about whatever on earth this concept was meant to be. ---- _nonsense ferret 21:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a "rule" that gives an answer which is exactly half the answer given by the well-known approximation by rectangles: the article calls it uncommon and inaccurate method of approximation, normally only reserved for teaching. It is not going to be anything actually used in the scientific literature, even if there are methods actually in use given the general name "triangular integration rule", because this "rule" gives the wrong answer by a factor of 2. It is patent nonsense. The clear signs of a hoax are: reference to a plausible sounding book, but no page number and the term turns out not to be in the book at all (ie reference is deliberately bogus); an alternate name which does not exist at all (ie deliberately bogus); and a description of a method which is just plain wrong. Deltahedron (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look by me brought up just one instance of 'triangular integration rule' and it was to do with finite element methods, nothing to do with what was stuck into this article. Dmcq (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article states that "the Triangular rule" always yields an underestimation, however, there are certain cases when it will not. My calculus professor in college used this rule to make just this point exactly. I have heard of this rule. Polygonwhizard (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC) — Polygonwhizard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Citation needed. This is the first edit by this person on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It won't always yield an underestimate, however those cases where it does work will be the extreme exception, based upon just getting lucky. If a professor is teaching this rule, then I would really question his right to be called a professor, and ability to teach maths, this is an extremely shoddy way of working, and a proper mathematician would know that, and refuse to teach it. Just because something is well known is a particular state, does not make it right.Martin451 (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi there everybody; it appears my article is under a lot of heat right now. This rule is known fairly well in Wisconsin, as some Wisconsin teachers use this method to introduce their students to RRAM, LRAM, and LRAM, as I stated in the article. Could it be that this is an issue of notability, rather than an issue of legitimacy? ZariakAC (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I for one found it very interesting that you made exactly the same quite rare error as Polygonwhizard in posting your comment at the start of this discussion rather than the end - there wouldn't be any connection between you and them would there? ---- _nonsense ferret 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about polygonwizard, but I wanted my "keep" to be at the top of the page so it could be seen first. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. In the future, I'll be sure to but the comment at the end of the discussion. ---- ZariakAC (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are about to be blocked for sockpuppetry. How about just leaving Wikipedia alone for a year thanks and then trying again when you have something to actually contribute. It looks like you can actually write English so you may be able to contribute constructively in the future sometime. Bye. Dmcq (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well WP are generally a friendly and generous bunch of people so anyone that comes in good faith with the intention of improving their knowledge and sharing their efforts with the world for free are very welcome. There are many out there that kinda take advantage of this by trying to subvert WP to their own goals of self promotion or just generally having a laugh, as well as those who game the system by trying to manipulate the processes by less than gentlemanly means. This happens a lot, so people get a bit annoyed when they think they see it happening. It's nice to be nice to people, and the only thing worth having out of WP at the end of the day is the satisfaction of making a positive contribution and hopefully gaining the respect of people you meet along the way. Just my thought for the day. ---- _nonsense ferret 01:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Striking ZariakAC's contribution as a confirmed sockpuppet. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Closing admin, please take into account the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZariakAC. --Rs chen 7754 03:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. There certainly is no literature about this integral approximation method, and as an actual approximation is complete WP:BULLOCKS. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Ozob (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is either a hoax, or written from a poor understanding. The rule as described will only every sum up half the intergral, i.e. it will always be a factor of two out. If that factor of 2 were added in, it would equate to the Trapezoidal rule. Section 2 states that it can only ever be used on a right sum, this is an insult to mathematics, a rule like this (if it worked) would be usable either way. Martin451 (talk) 14:05, 6 February 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 nomination has been withdrawn without any dissenting 'delete' views. TerriersFan (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Gandhi Memorial Boarding School[edit]

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

~~The article is unreferenced, and I could not find any possible independent, reliable sources. Seems to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)~~ I withdraw this nomination since the concerns have been addressed: sources have been added to the article. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 22:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only a senior high school but a boarding school to boot. We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools; very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and wait until local sources can be researched. TerriersFan (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the Indian schools tend to reduce their publicity through e-media, which doesn't mean that they lack the "stuff" for an encyclopedic article. The article may lack enough citations, but we can work together in rescuing it. bc-ndra (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verified secondary school. Boleyn (talk) 21:42, 6 February 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Roberts (aviator)[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, no substantial sources, doesn't meet GNG. Roberts was a WWII Wing Commander, but there's no indication he was "noted"; you would think that he'd have gotten a medal somewhere along the way, but there's no good record of his service floating around. As far as business goes, he founded a company (for which there is only one source to indicate), and that doesn't make him notable as an individual either. When the top ten GHits are the WP article, a bunch of mirrors, and hit 15 is already unrelated, there's a GNG issue. MSJapan (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - the main airport for the entire nation of the Cayman Islands, Owen Roberts International Airport, is named after him. There must be some reason they would name their main airport after him! Larry Grossman (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - As Larry Grossman pointed out, Owen Roberts International Airport is named after him. He appears to be somewhat notable, esp. in Cayman Islands. I propose keeping the article and adding citations or merging of this article into the Owen Roberts International Airport article instead. The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If an airport was named after him, I think there are probably good reasons. I really fail to see the relevance of "notability is not inherited" to this discussion. It's something that's brought up far too much by editors wanting to get articles deleted. If you mean his notability is not inherited from something named after him, I think you've got it the wrong way round! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, subject appears to be a significant contributor to aviation in the Cayman Islands through his lobbying for airfield construction, and ownership of a relatively non-notable regional airlines. At worse this is a candidate for merger to an appropriate article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep. I've found some coverage in the following sources:

Johnson, Vassel, (2001) As I See It: How Cayman Became a Leading Financial Centre, Book Guild, pp 89–90;
Craton, Michael (2003) Founded upon the seas: a history of the Cayman Islands and their people, I. Randle Publishers, pp. 332, 335–36, 347;

n.b: Added info from this source to article.

There appears to be further information in news articles from the Cayman islands, which I can't get access to. This guy seemed to have been a prominent fellow in his day, and since WP:NTEMP says significant coverage at one time is sufficient, I think this passes. We also have to remember that the Cayman Islands are a tiny, tiny place, and it hasn't delved deeply into local history (which isn't uncommon for Caribbean nations I find). The publishers of local history that you might find in larger territories don't appear to exist, and it looks like many works about the Caymans are published in other English-speaking Caribbean countries or in the US/UK. Cdtew (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tse[edit]

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

Non notable footballer who has not played internationally nor appears to have played in a fully professional league. As such would seem to fail both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence he meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and certainly fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No indication that the article meets WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:22, 7 February 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 Carlingford, New South Wales. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Farm Public School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. While there are references in the article, none of them give enough notability to meet wikipedia's (ridiculously and quite inconsistently) high standards for primary schools. Per WP:OUTCOMES, redirect to Carlingford, New South Wales. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no need to start an AFD if you think that redirection is in order unless this has been contested - you can just redirect it yourself. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carlingford, New South Wales. No reason to deviate from current practice established by clear precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the usual procedure to Carlingford, New South Wales. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Asika[edit]

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

IMO fails notability - he is the manager of a non-notable (IMO) artist Gbawden (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 22-year-old former manager of apparently non-notable artist. Gnews comes up with nothing. Article has nine cites, none of which look reliable. If anyone can come up with substantive, reliable sourcing, I would be happy to have another look. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Batu Beatz[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable, self-publishing musician. Unable to find any references in Google news, Google books, NewsBank, HighBeam, Credo and Questia when searching for "Batu Beatz" and "Batuhan Arslan". The article is merely promotional, and has become a link farm of Youtube videos and spam links. - Mr X 13:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clear CSD A7 case. Autobio, advertisement, non notable. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is only 22, so might achieve notability someday, but as of today his most notable achievement is contributing to an unreleased album by an unnotable musical act: "...he had his most commercial success to date with recording artist Tepki and his upcoming album 'Zafer'." --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Hobbes Goodyear, nothing against the artist but he just isn't notable yet. Andrew³²⁷ 18:44, 7 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Matthew Reece[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL - his current club is playing in a Regional League Division 2 Gbawden (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Apparently, he's played 5 games for Trinidad and Tobago: [2], and his website claims this as well. I have concerns that this is has WP:COPYVIO aspects - some of the information on his website has been directly copied (e.g. aspects of the lead). I can't evaluate the Soccerway source at present (internet filters). Lukeno94 (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't help in the slightest. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a reliable source that says he's played for Trinidad and Tobago's senior team. His website mentions his first cap was as a sub against Panama in 2006 but there's no mention of him on the team sheet at Soca Warriors [3]. I've checked through their World Cup qualifiers for SA2010 since it says he's played in one [4] but it fails to mention him again. He may have played for their youth team but this and his club history means he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Funny ^Pika! 22:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 22:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sipaseuth Sinbandith[edit]

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

Contested prod. Rationale given that as he has refereed AFF youth competitions he is notable. Players who have only appeared at youth level are generally not notable so I feel a referee who has is also not notable. In addition the article specifically states he has not refereed any major international adult tournaments. As such would appear to fail WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he has also refereed FIFA-recognised Exhibition Games for adult teams and many, many matches in the Lao League. I didn't put this in the article because it seemed quite logical to me. User:GioGyan 18:14 1 February 2013 (Netherlands standard time) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:19, 7 February 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) 23:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Knotz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Bringing this (procedurally) back to AFD because I restored this biography of a living person as a contested proposed deletion after a a refund request and the previous AfD was cut short by a speedy deletion referring to a different one-sentence version, but she still doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Tikiwont (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral for now~~ Weak keep - My heart is torn for !voting keep per passing WP:ENTERTAINER (she voices Jessie, Misty and May in Pokémon) and !voting delete (for a lack of coverage in reliable sources). I've found a few (possibly unreliable) interviews such as this, but little definite reliable coverage, which honestly isn't surprising given that there is actually little coverage for American anime voice actors in general, with a few notable exceptions. This is probably going to be a rare case where systemic bias applies to American actors, since we do have articles on Japanese voice actors who have little coverage in their native Japan because they do have major roles. Since I have been a Pokémon fan since childhood (I even liked the 4Kids dub despite being rather awful by today's standards; jelly-filled donuts, anyone?), it's too difficult to !vote in an AfD on someone who worked on the series, ~~so might as well abstain for now, unless someone else finds (or fails to find) reliable sources.~~ but since she has done major roles, then I'll give the benefit of a doubt and say that she's notable. There are still several fans of the Pokémon anime in the US, so there's probably reliable coverage out there. ~~Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)~~ Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's slow finding sources since the English markets tend to not interview or fawn over the VA the same way they would an actor or the way they do in Japan. I'm leaning towards a weak keep since she did perform some notable roles and is still performing as the voice actor for big roles such as Jessie. I did find a nice interview on AnimeCons, which was conducted with one of the Executive Producers of the site. AnimeCons might be somewhat more known for giving routine listings of events at times, but it is what I'd consider a reliable source in this instance.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of those instances where there might not be a lot of sources such as interviews and direct coverage, but there are enough sources that confirm that she has voiced several notable roles within the anime world. She's big enough to warrant her being the main guest at some anime conventions. This is almost a weak keep, but what turns this into a stronger keep for me is that the roles she's voiced are big ones in the anime world. I'd say that she passes part one of WP:ENTERTAINER and would be one of those rare instances where someone has performed notable roles without getting a ton of coverage about it in the mainstream press.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – She's been in plenty of roles, and the sources for that are out there. I see no reason to delete; this article is far better than your average one-sentence voice actress stub. Bensci54 (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 11:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ENTERTAINER number 1 is clearly met, as others have already said. Dream Focus 23:39, 1 February 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 Hose coupling#Express coupling. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Express coupling[edit]

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

Hard to understand and no references Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 16:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced article is apparently about a specific type of hose coupling: ....symmetrial half-couplings for water and air which complying with the NF E 29-573 standard. If this phrase always refers to a specific kind, that might be a redirect candidate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article looks like a close paraphrasing of LMC's express coupling product sheet. I could find no secondary sources for the topic, only primary spec sheets and sales listings. Note that the express couplings are already mentioned in the Hose coupling article; I agree that it is the natural target for a redirect. Mark viking (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per Smerdis, Mark, WP:CHEAP, and WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hose coupling#Express coupling No inherent notable for a standalone article. Borderline WP:OR with no reliable or independent sources. Definitely fails WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 08:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Hose coupling has a section Hose coupling#Express coupling which is a very obvious target. Doesn't seem notable on its own. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:24, 1 February 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. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Knowledge Worker of Korea[edit]

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

An unsourced substub about an award (title?) of non-obvious notability anyway. Pundit|utter 08:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources about this award and title in South Korea (in their own language, Korean says Sinjisikin in their language). However you can find many of articles like [5] and [6], [7] and [8]. This award is so notable than an order and medal. The official translate of this 'Sinjisikin' is New Knowledge Worker of Korea [9], [10]. I can guess you may not catch this and other national title around the World with some language barriers. If you have any doubt, you may need to contact to Korean Government, specially Ministry of Public Administration and Security of Korea, before you or other staff consider to delete this wikipedia article. Mailzzang+aus (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can also guess English wikipedia may need to put more titles which are awarded and/or supported by national governments than English speaking countries and Russia, because there are just few other nationals' awards and titles (especially China and other Asian nations). I heard China also confers some national levelled titles like Russia. I can be ridiculous, if most of nations doesn't have their own title system like America and Russia (in this case, Knew Knowledge Worker of Korea is just one example showing Korean title awarding system) Mailzzang+aus (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, as long as this information gets introduced into the article, It may make some sense to keep it indeed - but without introducing proper sourcing into the article (not not just into this discussion) the article is not in a shape warranting its survival. Pundit|utter 15:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your respond, I put some references including Korean government sources on this article. If you think the additional references should be fine, please delete the deletion notice on the article. Mailzzang+aus (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this issue may have been settled as no more objection on references including Korean Government's, which put by me. If there will be no more discussion, we may finish this discussion. Thanks Mailzzang+aus (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now remove the deletion message on the main article, because here is no more objection in this discussion board and the issue had been soundly settled. If you have any option, please put a message to the talk board of the main article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Knowledge_Worker_of_Korea&action=edit&redlink=1) Thanks :) Mailzzang+aus (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article includes appropriate references, as I am a Korean language student. May I ask when is the discussion due day? 131.217.255.209 (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:43, 19 January 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I guessed, this article should be kept for the aforementioned reasons Mailzzang+aus (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources are not first class because they are not independent, but I do not share the nominator's notability concerns. A title that 3,000 (out of 50 Mio) citizens hold, where the Ministry keeps a separate database to list them, and that warrants a conferment ceremony, is probably notable. --Pgallert (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:DGG, CSD#G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International journal of computers & Technology[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Non independent sources, not included in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Article dePRODded by anonymous IP with no reason stated. PRODreason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources at all. Mcewan (talk) 14:08, 21 January 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 00:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a number of similarly named journals with similar acronyms, but I am finding nothing to indicate that this one is notable. The article content itself is largely about how to submit articles, rather than any clear assertion of notability, and it lacks independent references. AllyD (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 as blatant advertising — so tagged. I note that the properly capitalized variation of the title, International Journal of Computers & Technology, was deleted for exactly that reason in April 2012. But in any case there is no evidence of passing WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable and no independent sources. Toffanin (talk) 22:45, 1 February 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 Brooklyn#Education. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 17:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditmas Junior High School 62[edit]

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

Article is about some random junior high school in Brooklyn that completely fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Unless something notable happened there or it has a significant history behind it, which I cannot find any evidence of for this school, elementary and middle schools are not considered notable for Wikipedia The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree for all the reasons stated by The Legendary Ranger. --Arg342 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:25, 11 January 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 00:25, 18 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fugetaboutit (Delete) per nom. "School highlights: Band; Cheerleading; Community service". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brooklyn#Education per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reslisting debate since this discussion has no clear consensus for having 1 redirect and 1 delete garnered after the past relistings.

Comment Seems like there needs to be a mass clean-up against WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES when looking at Category:Public middle schools in New York. Mkdw ^talk 10:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.115.58 (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The first three !votes seem rather lacking in policy-based weight and clarity, unlike the latter opinions (after the second relist). I see emerging consensus for a possible redirect and will specifically not salt the title to make sure that if an appropriate target is agreed upon, the title can be redirected. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Bigod[edit]

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

Genealogy-cruft, nothing notable about the woman herself. PatGallacher (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequately sourced historical figure. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Judging by its ratings, readers have found the information within the article useful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- quite enough content. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 21 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is point of relisting given the debate above? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The second and third keep !votes didn't particularly strike me as being very policy-based. Therefore, the consensus was not clear in my opinion. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References, to the extent I can check them, appear to be database listings and short of "in-depth" coverage, which leaves this article technically short of WP:GNG. I'd cut it enough slack to stay over the line were it not for two factors. First, in my experience, the reliability of individual genealogical entries in databases is often overstated, editorial oversight is weak. This creates a WP:V problem. Secondly, and yet confirming the first point, the veracity of of much of what has already been said was called into question 100 years ago based on what one reliable source described as conflicting sources.

"Identity of Isabel Bigod. ... Whatever the cause, the fact remains that Isabel Bigod's parentage is either so recorded as, from the diversity of the statements, to throw doubt upon the reliability thereof, or else she herself is omitted"

White, William (1915). Notes and Queries. Oxford University Press. p. 465. Retrieved 1 February 2013.

As a result, I believe the article is insufficiently verifiable by reliable sources, and that the lack of meeting WP:GNG is not a mere technicality in this case, but reflects a deeper issue with what we really verifiably know about this subject. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does your research include the sources currently used in the article? Any chance those offline sources might satisfy GNG? At the same time, none of the keepers make any claim of meeting GNG either.—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the physical sources, what snippets I could find match up-on line don't seem substantial to me, but there is definitely some room for me to be wrong. Even if those references provided substantial coverage, I'd be suspicious of their reliability, however. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Questionable historical provenance is no obstacle to an article. We have one on her near contemporary Robin Hood. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Of course not, if one actually owns up to which things are questionable facts and which aren't. When I look at sources which say this:
Scottish princess and countess of Norfolk. Name variations: Isabel Dunkeld; Isabel Bigod; Isabella. Fl. around 1225; interred at Church of the Black Friars, London; dau. of William I the Lion (b. 1143), king of Scots, and Ermengarde of Beaumont (d. 1234); m. Roger Bigod (c. 1212–1270), 4th earl of Norfolk, May 1225, in Alnwick, Northumberland.

And try and line them up with this article, I find myself a bit lost. Now, certainly, the reference here to Isabel Bigod might be a different Isabel Bigod of the 13th century. "Dictionary of Women Worldwide: 25,000 Women Through the Ages", 2007, via HighBeam research. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-2588811593.html --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody has made a claim of notability via GNG, and nobody has vouched for the depth of coverage in the offline sources. The online source found in the discussion is trivial coverage. I am not an expert in this area, so all I can gather is her claim to fame is being someone's daughter or wife (not sure which is more significant). I'd (naively) say to redirect to whoever she is most notable for being related to if notability cannot be established.—Bagumba (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTDIR #2 may be relevant to your comment. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDIR doesn't preclude redirects as I interpret it. Are you of the same thinking?—Bagumba (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I have no concerns with, and would even prefer a redirect if an appropriate topic can be suggested. --j⚛e decker ^talk 08:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to an appropriate topic. Joe Decker's verifiability concerns are convincing. Also, the sources givens seem to be of the genealogical variety, and given that the article does not tell us anything about the person except genealogical information (and it is not Wikipedia's purpose to be a genealogical database) it appears that there is insufficient in-depth coverage about her as a person in order to pass WP:GNG. Sandstein 11:10, 2 February 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. Not all the links in Bushranger's vote are all that significant (for instance the EU blacklist includes Mistral because all the Congolese airlines are on that list), but the video link (about a Mistral DC-9) does provide some reasonably significant coverage of the airline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistral Aviation[edit]

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

After having read through the deletion policies, I am convinced that Mistral Aviation fails the WP:CORP notability guideline. It has not been the subject of any significant coverage in secondary sources. The two references given in the article are the only ones that can be found. [11] states that the airline was very short-lived: It was founded in 2009, and by October of that year it had its Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) revoked, due to documentation issues. This means, that Mistral Aviation itself had problems proving that it's an airline. The other "source" is a tiny snippet from a Lonely Planet travel guide, which merely states that there were three weekly flights (I have no idea how reliable this is) - again only proving the mere existence of Mistral Aviation. But per WP:EXIST, this does not establish notability. Therefore, the Mistral Aviation article should be deleted. FoxyOrange (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 19 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability is not intrinsic in an airline and has not been established for this particular one. YSSYguy (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Operating on a scheduled service is the standard used for notability for airlines. The airline may now be defunct, but Notability is not temporary. Possible additional sources: [12], [13], [14], [15]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger, please note that there is no notability guideline for airlines. Instead, WP:CORP must be followed. Again, those four sorces you gave cannot be regarded as significant coverage. Also, the video you gave as a source is actually about a DC-9 in FIFA colors, which was operated by Global Aviation (see: [16]). I have no idea what the link to Mistral Aviation is, but it strenghtens the feling that Mistral was not a real airline, rather a failed start-up. --FoxyOrange (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is WP:CONSENSUS, through long-standing editing and past AfD results, that all scheduled airlines are notable. I couldn't see the video, only the title, hence my including it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bushranger's correct description of our usual practices for verified scheduled airlines, even if the coverage is fairly scanty. Completeness is a virtue in an encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shri AMARPUR ASTHAN Tando Adam Darbar[edit]

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

Really not sure what to make of this. It's either copied from somewhere or made up as I can't find any reference to anything here anywhere. I initially CSD'd it under A7 but I'm not sure what the subject of the article actually is. I thought 'No Context' or 'Patent Nonsense' but decided it was safer just to AfD it. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As unsourceable original research, essay or possibly copyvio, if it's a translation of something in one of the non-Latin alphabet Indian subcontinent languages. Unless someone can suggest a viable redirect, move or merge target. If we can't at least minimally source something we shouldn't keep it around. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to be story, not a topic. Badly written, anyway.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:05, 4 February 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) 19:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Fuzz[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBAND; unexplained PROD removal by article creator. Music News is the only reliable source where the band is the subject of the publication. All other sources appear to be trivial mentions. Mkdw ^talk 09:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At [17] I found a scan of a November 1972 Melody Maker article about the band. Another article appeared in the January 5, 1971 issue of Beat Instrumental. A scan of it is at [18]. Both articles cover Demon Fuzz and nothing else. I was working on this article in AfC and I've pasted the material from there into the main space, so please take another look before voting. 24.24.214.15 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding the article. Unfortunately almost all the sources are WP:PRIMARY such as Amazon.com and only cite things such as release dates, countries, etc. As for the two sources you mentioned, they appear to be WP:Run of the mill coverage you would expect for a limited size band and still does not meet WP:NBAND. I'm going to trim down the sources. You only need one source for things like a release date than 4-5. I think the most important thing to note is that none of the albums achieved any notable success or WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 21:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their album Afreaka! was a Billboard "4-STAR" selection in June of 1971. ^[1]. 24.24.214.15 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that source is that it's only five words long in a list of other bands with star ratings. It's considered a trivial mention and a non-notable recognition unlike other awards laid out in WP:NBAND. Also, I discovered that many of the sources were used edited content such as music forums or listings and that many of the sources are about their associated acts. I have removed them as contentious. This article really needs to find in-depth reliable and independent sources where the band in the subject of the article and not a trivial mention. Mkdw ^talk 21:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you'd like to rephrase "I discovered that many of the sources were used edited content such as music forums or listings and that many of the sources are about their associated acts"? I have trouble understanding it, but I'll make a partial response.

The forum link was originally placed there by the creator of the article, not by me...unless you found more than one such link?

I did include some links to material by one of the band members. I put it under "external links" and (I thought) clearly indicated what it was. Is that what you meant by "many of the sources are about their associated acts"?

I notice you've deleted all the links I found on Amazon. I apologize for attemping to use them to support the statement that Demon Fuzz' music is sampled and used by DJs. However, I don't understand why they cannot be used to support such things as the existence of particular recordings as products, and (what should be) uncontroversial "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" (quote from Wikipedia:PRIMARY) about those products such as catalog numbers, publication dates, and track listings.

I found a scan of the liner notes to Afreaka! on someone's blog, and used that to support the track listing for that album (showing how it had ordering and timing than the Janus Records version) and statement that a particular musician was credited as having performed on that album, but you deleted that reference, leaving no reference for that material. Can you explain your reasoning?

~~You~~ I found a page on www.music-news.com (a domain first registered in 2010) about the band, and you seemed to consider that an acceptable source. I don't see why Melody Maker and Beat Instrumental are not. Both had national circulation in the UK, and both existed for far longer than www.music-news.com. As I said, the band was "the subject of the article and not a trivial mention" in both magazines. Are you saying that much as a street map lists all the streets in a city, magazines that specialize in music must fill themselves with articles about nearly every musician? If so, wouldn't WP:MILL apply to the www.music-news.com review as well? 24.24.214.15 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Received sufficient coverage to be considered notable. The band also released records on a major label and appeared on UK television in an era when there were only a few channels. --Michig (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added material about their appearance on BBC television. According to an out-of-print book I found snippets of online, "Demon Fuzz had been carefully selected by the News of the World" tabloid (I wasn't able to read the reason why) for an article (which I haven't found) about how the producer was offered payola to have the band on his show. He was fired before the article ran, and he later appeared in court and was fined over a payola incident involving another band, the Equals. There's a Wikipedia article about someone with a similar name to the BBC producer, but I didn't link to that because I'm not certain it's about the same person (it doesn't mention television work) and I didn't want to libel him. I don't know much about the BBC payola scandal(s). Did that News of the World story touch it all off?

I also found a book saying they played at the Phun City Festival, along with the American band MC5. Is it okay to mention other bands who played with them at a concert? I did that with their Hollywood Music Festival gig but it was deleted for being "not related to the band directly":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Fuzz&diff=536087604&oldid=536086944

Demon Fuzz is not mentioned in the Phun City or Hollywood Music Festival articles. Will it cause controversy if I insert them in the lists of performers, or would it be more proper to wait until the deletion proposal expires?

The Demon Fuzz article has a template saying that the article doesn't cite any sources. May that template be deleted immediately once citations are added, or should it only be deleted when the AfD process is finished? 24.24.214.15 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question (more of a complaint, really) about that edit I mentioned above,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Fuzz&diff=536087604&oldid=536086944

It was done with the comment (I quote in full) "removing user edited source and content not related to the band directly" but deleted from the External Links section the music-news.com review of Afreaka!, the bio of the band (ostensibly) written by its leader, and an interview of the band leader. I was not using those as sources, and I feel that they are closely related to the band or its works. They may be "sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Are any of these suitable for addition back to the article? 24.24.214.15 (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Additional sources include the review Corbett, John. "Afreaka!: Demon Fuzz" Down Beat 71. 1 (Jan 2004): 18. Also a review in Thompson, Ben. "Pop: Demon Fuzz: Afreaka!", The Sunday Telegraph 8 Jan 2006: p. 36. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding those. I'm having trouble finding them on the Internet. If you don't mind me asking, could you provide any quotes, or incorporate these sources in the article in a suitable way? 24.24.214.15 (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per rs coverage and per Michig/Paul.Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 3 February 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola El Catania[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Unsourced BLP. 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) 16:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet to play a game in a fully professional league, does not meet WP:ATHLETE. Article can be recreated if and when he gets a game. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:09, 5 February 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) 23:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-house[edit]

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

I am proposing this article for deletion because it does not meet WP:GNG. After doing a good faith search on Google (including Google Books) I honestly don't think this genre even exist. //Gbern3 (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources are evident so appears to fails to meet WP:NOTE.--SabreBD (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:16, 19 January 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 00:45, 25 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 06:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd suggest redirecting to Dance-pop but cue endless debates about the difference between the 2 genres. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another made-up musical genre, the article even says that it is "more commonly known as 'commercial dance'", no it isn't because it doesn't exist. The article then goes on to list a rag-tag collection of artists that have nothing in common genre-wise: Coldcut are not in the same register as Daft Punk, Bomb the Bass do not electrorock out like Digitalism and so on. Maybe Guetta and Dannii Minogue would be considered "commercial dance" music but that's beside the point. This is rubbish. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:01, 3 February 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) 23:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Fischedick[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BIO. Google shows nothing. Nothing more than vanity spam Hu12 (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from a couple of passing mentions (most substantially this (German), which quotes but is not really about the subject) I am not finding anything that can support WP:ANYBIO notability. Note also previous deletion from the German Wikipedia: [19] AllyD (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 06:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:15, 1 February 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) 23:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Terrier[edit]

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

Seems to be one more case of 'putting my WP:MADEUP dog breed on wikipedia makes it legitimate.' The only references to the breed I can find are on sites that allow user contributions. I can't find any references on Google Books or Scholar. TKK ^{bark !} 04:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for your dog breed you bred up one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 1 February 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 06:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete 95% of the GHits are for missile systems, what's left is clearly not relevant. Mangoe (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mes Novin Kerman F.C.[edit]

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

Part of a large series of unreferenced micro-stubs about football teams in Iran which have not received significant coverage or played at a national level in order to meet notability guidelines. c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ara-e Gharb Kermanshah F.C.. This nomination covers a total of eight articles, for which I believe identical deletion criteria apply. C 679 06:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven related articles listed below per nomination:

C 679 06:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 06:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. C 679 06:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 06:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom, notability not stablished. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Iran Football's 3rd Division; I agree that there is no evidence of notability, but these are plausible search terms so a redirect makes sense. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there doesn't seem to be any evidence that any of these clubs played in the mentioned league, so not sure how a redirect would be useful. C 679 18:29, 8 February 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) 23:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-English-language Danny Phantom voice actors[edit]

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

Very incomplete, lacking sources, and non-notable. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 11:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 28 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR; standard practice is to delete this sort of article; lack of high-quality references to reliable sources; lots of holes in the list; even for major TV series we don't normally list every actor in the original cast, and listing voice actors is even less important. Would belong on Danny Phantom Wikia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:32, 1 February 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) 23:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-English-language Total Drama voice actors[edit]

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

Very incomplete, lacking sources, and non-notable. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 11:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This info is better on the respective languages' wiki. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 28 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate listing with many holes; fails WP:NOTDIR. Standard practice is to delete this sort of article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:28, 1 February 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) 23:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church in the 21st Century[edit]

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

Non-notable special project by Boston College. No evidence of any WP:Notability. GrapedApe (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current and previous versions of the article are close paraphrases of the center's about us page but maybe not close enough for a G12 speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now since no secondary sources provided. It might prove notable later. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:JamesBWatson, CSD#G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McGushion[edit]

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

This is not the subject of substantial coverage by reliable sources, and fails the WP:BASIC requirement of encyclopedic notability. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES turn out to be routine filings, PR, self-publication, passing coverage, and name listings in programs. JFHJr (㊟) 04:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no plausible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per A7 and G11 - no credible assertion of notability and probably a paid/vanity bio. ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 1 February 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) 06:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted Nuts Animation Studios[edit]

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

blatantly fails WP:CORP. sources are mostly primary. hardly anything in gnews [20] LibStar (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search using the Norwegian Kvasir search engine found multiple independent articles about the company, mostly in Swedish but including a couple in an English-language trade journal. I'm not sure of the status of the Streamy award in respect to establishing notability, but I believe this meets the GNG. It already had at least two independent sources, but they were hard to see among all the other bare URLs - I've added several refs and a little information and identified those two, and will do some more work on the article. --Yngvadottir (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Established and independently verified. Noted also in established media, Strike TV, Animation magazine; one of the studios creations is signed to EMI; the studio has syndicated series on American animation network Toon Goggles; one of the studios creations is noted as the world's first animated blogger; Streamy Award winner. The recently improved refs help. Archive List (talk) 23:59, 3 February 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa King[edit]

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

Has not had "significant roles in multiple notable... television shows". Just Edgemont. I can't see anything more than directory listings so doesn't have significant coverage in reliable third party sources either. Perhaps redirect it to Edgemont but it seems unlikely that people will look for her outside of that show so I don't see the point. James086 ^Talk 13:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – See my additions to the article. King actually received more press coverage for her performance in the movie Liar, Liar which was filmed when she was eleven years old. She received Gemini Award nominations for both performances (in 1994 and in 2001). I believe there is enough coverage to meet the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:10, 21 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:19, 25 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards keep - I'm amazed at the amount of coverage she received for Liar, Liar at a young age. She hasn't been active recently and appeared to have never achieved any major and long-term roles but Google News found some results for Edgemont (three news articles from that time, 2001) but I didn't find anything for Honey, I Shrunk The Kids: The TV Show. Google Books, however, provided directories with brief mentions for Honey, I Shrunk The Kids. A search for the Cold Squad roles provided nothing substantial and this appears to be irrelevant as the preview for the Cold Squad column never mentions a "Vanessa King" and this IMDb page for another Canadian named Vanessa King confirms it. Additional searches for The Odyssey and Are You Afraid of the Dark? offered nothing. Although the news articles aren't available for full view, this much attention is considerably significant despite one role so I vote keep. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 4 February 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. Redirected after deleting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SUPREME Food Market[edit]

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

Appears to be a non notable supermarket. There's a lack of coverage in the media and no indication this market is unique enough or notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry at this time. Dianna (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A supermarket that has been open less than a week. Not yet notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Royal Supermarket where it is mentioned as a sister/competitor (though the Royal Supermarket article itself has issues). It's unlikely it will establish much notability at this time if it opened this year in January. It's possible there are other news articles, probably non-English, but the current information is not appropriate and reads like an advertisement (store security and detailed section about rewards program). I tried using Google News to search for more sources but didn't find any so it's probably received attention solely in China. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnotable and promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Silvey (producer)[edit]

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

I've tried to find some sources for this, and I did find a pretty good one at Sound on Sound, which I've included in the article. Although this guy has worked as a producer/engineer on a lot of hit records, I can't find anything that marks him out as meeting WP:GNG. Sure, the records he worked on are notable, but is he notable, himself? — sparklism ^hey! 14:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 14:25, 18 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:18, 25 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Shu-fen[edit]

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

Has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Therefore does not meet WP:N. Before someone cites WP:ATHLETE note that it presumes notability, it does not grant notability. It presumes that there will be significant coverage but in this, and many other cases there has not been. All of the information in the article is included in Beach volleyball at the 2012 Asian Beach Games#Group Y so there is no need to merge and it is an implausible redirect. James086 ^Talk 15:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While in my opinion I agree that stubs that don't expand on information already given elsewhere here should be removed, I don't think that your argument that "presumption" does not "grant" notability is valid. WP:GNG in itself "presumes" notability based on criteria which "received significant coverage..." falls under. Anyone following your line of reasoning would have right to argue that anything they dislike can be deleted by saying <insertWPpolicyhere> does not "grant" nobility, in effect rendering policies obsolete.

On a side note, if this goes you may want to take a look at other similar stubs on Beach volleyball at the 2012 Asian Beach Games. Most of them are also single line stubs with that same dead link reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FunnyPika (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that bit in the GNG, but I think this should still run its course because this person very clearly does not meet the GNG but does meet WP:ATHLETE. After this has run its course I'll bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) and then if appropriate proceed to nominate other similar stubs. I have come across hundreds like this (not just Asian Beach Games competitors) that probably don't have a single source that provides "significant coverage" (meaning in-depth info). James086 ^Talk 17:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:53, 19 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:17, 25 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you feel the WP:RULES don't apply here and can make a good argument for such, I'd encourage you to debate along the WP:IGNORE all rules lines. Don't take "no" for an answer if you feel you can provide a sufficient means for inclusion that is not so obvious to other folks. Gives you the chance to make a point without anchoring it to the usual myriad of Wiki policy responsibilities. Never know what may pan out & good luck :) Яεñ99 (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should clarify a tad...Delete. I can't see a need for this as an independent inclusion. I forgot to put that in there a bit ago... Яεñ99 (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anybody checked for sources in Chinese-language media? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese Taipei University Sport Federation mentions her here [21], but I don't think it's enough to push past WP:GNG. She also plays indoor volleyball for TaiPower [22] so there could be coverage there. If anyone is fluent in traditional Chinese they could try searching "吳淑芬排球" (Wu Shu-Fen volleyball). Funny ^Pika! 02:46, 2 February 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 Cleveland railway station. With page author's consent. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Brisbane train crash[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Also fails WP:EVENT. Nothing notable about this at all.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William 01:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 01:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC) ...William 01:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extraordinary crash into the ladies bathroom. Worldwide press coverage. NickSt (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination; this is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. This relatively minor accident should be noted in the article in whatever station this occurred at and possibly the Citytrain article, but it doesn't warrant its own article as its unlikely to be of any lasting significance. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Cleveland railway station (where the crash occurred) which also covers this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Cleveland railway station. Unlike the Saltsjöbaden crash (where I argued keep), which garnered world-wide coverage and indeed is still generating coverage, this one hasn't, yet, moved into anything that doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS - but the information would fit the railway station article. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Cleveland railway station per above reasoning. Seems pretty clear. --Lockley (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS, 2013 Brisbane train crash is not a good title for a redirect but if consensus is to redirect then thats fine too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! (as author). Was merged to Cleveland railway station with leaving a redirect. Thanks. NickSt (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Article speedy closed and kept per nominator's withdrawal and no !votes for deletion. Yes, I opined below and worked to improve the article, but it was becoming a blizzard, the nominator withdrew, and this discussion had been rendered moot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September Eleven 1683[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria of notability: - The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. - The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. - The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. - The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. - The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. - The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. - The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. - The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema.) - The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. - The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Kami956 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC) — Kami956 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. The Polish Wikipedia article cites sources such as this and this that demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree... Kami956 (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tough. Please click here to learn why. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources that Phil Bridger mentioned. What the nominator listed are points from WP:NF to determine notability if WP:GNG is not sufficient. Phil's sources reflect that it meets WP:GNG, and a cursory look at Google News Search's archives shows a smattering of foreign-language articles that mention the film. It's likely that the film is not one covered by English-language media, so we should assess this topic with care. If there are any Polish-language editors available, additional sources to solidify notability further would be welcome. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable. The movie has a cast full of top names (well, in Poland at least) and has been reviewed in many notable sources (pretty much all negatively): Gazeta Wyborcza, Polityka, Rzeczpospolita, etc. The movie probably sucks, but that's true for a lot (most?) of notable movies.Volunteer Marek 19:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assessment! All, using the above keywords, here is Gazeta Wyborcza, and here is Rzeczpospolita. Phil already linked to the Polityka review. The topic definitely meets WP:GNG. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC

Keep. Movies are notable. This has received decent press coverage, at least in Poland (as shown already). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stub article of notable film. I would encourage the nominator that. rather than nominating something for deletion as his first-ever edit to WIkipedia, he spend time studying the various guidelines first. IE: WP:NF, WP:GNG, and WP:NONENG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,A well known film in Italy.User:Lucifero4

This one seems to be a no-brainer.[23] Considering the number of sources available, how easy this one was to improve,[24] and how easily the nominator's rationale was refuted, does anyone care to snow close this? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - considering the number of sources available, this article passes the GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I do not know whether it was intended as a withdrawal, but the nominator removed the AFD template from the article.[25] I reverted him,[26] and dropped a note on his talk page[27] explaining that the template must remain until this AFd is closed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per above and significant coverage and obvious notability. LenaLeonard (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

think the discussion can be closed >< Kami956 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 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 February 1. Snotbot t • c » 00:59, 1 February 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untited Tour[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yes a tour is coming but its unnamed and mostly to be announced. This article can wait till more details are known. ...William 00:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions....William 01:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions....William 01:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER it (delete) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it obviously falls afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. A concert tour still in early planning stages with minimal detail available. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HAMMERTIME! (yes, delete). When you figure out the name, let us all know! Яεñ99 (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete peacefully and respectfully as premature (and spelled incorrectly). --Lockley (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rather early to create the page. Bring the WP:HAMMER down on a page on what I thought was about tits, not an untitled music tour. In all seriousness, though, still early to create. Zappa O Mati 21:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a pretty clearcut case of WP:TOOSOON. Mkdw ^talk 01:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have performed at The Masquerade (Atlanta)[edit]

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

Unsourced list of artist that "once" performed in this mid sized concert hall. Plain name dropping. List adds nothing to the article of the concert hall. The Banner talk 00:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent - I created the article only because the list was too long for inclusion in the article. I tried to find a source but could not. If y'all think it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, so be it Keizers (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why create something here if you don't care if it survives inclusion? "Ambivalent" is a rotten answer to a question, it's a waste of your good time, and then we have to look at and remind you of such =/ Don't be discouraged from finding good contributions, just be selective in what you submit! Яεñ99 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ren99, you're making assumptions here. I put the "ambivalent" comment here so people would know what the creator of the article thought and not wonder why I had not chimed in. The "list" article creation creation was part of the cleanup of the already existing main article The Masquerade (Atlanta), i.e. separating out a very long list from the existing article. I could have just said nothing here in this discussion; I certainly did not expect to be reprimanded for it. Zheesh and sigh. Keizers (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't have to worry, no one is reprimanding you :) Just wonder why you'd put forth effort into something, then use a word that means literally "no opinion or attachment." Love what ya do, so we can support ya for doing it! Best wishes :) Яεñ99 (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. Playing The Masquerade isn't the highlight of one's career, unlike say Carnegie Hall or the Apollo Theater. Do you really want to open the floodgates to every unremarkable venue in the world? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't recall all those bands playing at the venue when I lived in Atlanta. Do you have the actual venue logs in published format so that we can verify the information from both the venue side, as well as from published performance logs from the artists that supposedly played there? The venue should be able to provide you with published performance listings and links where available, and the various record labels/publicity and the bands own logs/fanzine should have records of performance times and dates. If you could add links to that info it would sure help evaluating this timely - otherwise it makes it super difficult to confirm. Thanks :) Яεñ99 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't merge back being an unsourced list. Even if this could be reliably sourced, there is no evidence that performing at the concert venue advanced any of these musicians careers, thus a clear cut WP:NOT#INFO violation. To Keizers, you could have just be BOLD and remove the information, as policy applies to every article on this project and this list is no exception. You were right in getting rid of the information from the parent page, but wrong in creating a new article. WP:USERFY would have been a better solution. Secret ^account 04:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found the source, Masquerade's My Space page Keizers (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not a reliable, independent source of this subject, and the main problem I am here is if performing at The Masquerade advanced any of the artists listed careers, that what WP:GNG needs to focus on, as the list itself fails the basic NOTINFO policy. Secret ^account 22:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Secret explains well why. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:06, 8 February 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) 23:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Reforestation[edit]

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

Urban Reforestation is not a movement per se. Reforestation, both urban and rural, occurs as part of the environmental and conservation movement but it cannot be seen as separate to the environmental movement. The article is mainly about Australia. Google Scholar is bereft of info about it. The article appears to be POV-pushing by a SPA. Emilybbrodie (talk · contribs), the creator of the article which was her only edit, is the director of Urban Reforestation organisation. A link to their website is used in the article as a ref so we have a case of WP:COI as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 08:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep I agree about the conflict of interest of the article originator Emilybbrodie (talk · contribs). But the originator was only responsible for the first edit; the article has been edited by a number of authors since then and the article is no longer largely her work. As a sampling of sources contributing toward notability, I found

All of these look like secondary references and all go in depth about urban reforestation and it's effects. All except possibly source 4 look reliable; I don't know the reliability of the TimesLedger. The presence of multiple reliable secondary sources suggests that urban reforestation is a notable concept and it seems notable in countries other than Australia. Given the notability and the fact that non-neutral POV problems in the article are surmountable (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE), I recommend keeping the article. Mark viking (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the poor state of the article in terms of coverage and accuracy, and that we already have a reforestation article we should get rid of it and start again. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Reforestation: makes the most sense to me. Seems like there's enough info on the subject to become part of the bigger article. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge. Most of it is a vehicle for the Urban Reforestation organisation mentioned on the page. There is room for an article on urban reforestation but it would be nothing like this article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its an interesting topic but this article is not good. I have no idea what it refers specifically to. Its not really a movement, just a concept. A better article may emerge after a split from reforestation, Sustainable Urbanism or other articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have rewritten the article to provide a more balanced viewpoint and to include some of the reliable sources I quoted above. It is still but a stub, but is hopefully a better base upon which to expand the article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In light of Mark viking's changes. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Urban Reforestation"? Isn't that an oxymoron? Now granted, amongst various college degrees I have one in Forestry too, but never in our debates was "Urban" reforestation a topic. It's a lovely concept I suppose, but by definition the development inherent in an Urban environment precludes the addition of an overwhelming forested setting as well (Rivendell in real life the world ain't - we don't live in trees). Sure, we implement green ways, parks, and other of nature's inclusions. But I don't ever recall an Urban development plan that included reforesting the area. Not to say it doesn't exist on paper somewhere (save the trees!), just doesn't sound real practical. Яεñ99 (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge with Urban forestry. This is a stub article on an important, legitimate topic. Though it seems like an oxymoron, urban reforestation is an important 'movement' across the world, related today also to mitigating effects of urban heat islands on global climate change. There is now a scientific journal on Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. The United States Forest Service has an urban forestry unit. There are many other examples of why this is a notable topic. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urban forest, Urban forestry, reforestation, urban reforestation. Seem to have four different articles with a lot of the same information in them. Dream Focus 20:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with any science, there are important distinctions between the resource and the profession and resource management practices that have developed in relation to that resource. E.g. heart & heart surgeon. Reforestation (also reafforestation), is a very broad term applied to every and any habitat. Urban reforestation presents particular challenges and rewards. Globally, urban heat islands, with temperatures significantly higher than surrounding areas, are an important, climate-change related phenomenon... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, as there are things I include in random musings that do not necessarily reflect the views of management...but there are a Large number of people out there - scientists and otherwise - who firmly believe there is no foundation to the theory/theories of Global Warming & climate-change. Hence, the ideas of these different aspects of a similar scientific nature/focus are by no means acknowledged by the entire community. So though we separate them here by topic because there is "identifiable" difference when considered by some, we cannot say that there is separation when considered by all. Great ideas and topics; gives a few to reflect on them - thank you DASonnenfeld. I'm gonna avoid discussing management, because that's a dollars and sense business, and how they do things is either sustained yield or not Яεñ99 (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Яεñ99 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Яεñ99 makes an important point: there is the fundamental resource, in this case urban forest (as strange as that may sound or seem), and various perspectives in relation to it. Forestry and Reforestation both imply intentional human management of, or intervention in relation to, the resource, though potentially for various aims. (They are the counterpoint or maybe antidote to Deforestation, also the result of human action on the resource.) The proposed action here, deleting the article on Urban Reforestation, takes the view that there is insufficient basis for a separate article on that topic. My point is that there is enough happening in that area (e.g. various Million Trees programs) in enough significant places around the world -- as diverse as New York City, Shanghai and Denver, to name a few -- that it is an important topic. Urban heat islands (all that asphalt, cement and steel retains an incredible amount of solar energy) are an indisputable phenomenon, whether or not you want to link them to global climate change. Urban reforestation seems to be a viable approach for addressing this. It may be possible to successfully merge Urban Reforestation with Urban forestry, but in my view it would be a mistake to delete the former altogether. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Urban reforestration is popular in Philadelphia and other cities and is a worthy separate article. Enough here documented to keep and improve.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am sufficiently convinced by explanation(s) and prior hx that the topic is of importance to debate, provision of information, and for use in an encyclopedic environment for inclusion. The topic is deeply interwoven in the philosophies of many contemporary ideas of resource protection, development, and management. Яεñ99 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Windows tablet devices[edit]

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

This would work better as someone's userspace draft because it is very clearly not ready for mainspace yet, with significant amounts of information missing, and what information is present consists entirely of original research, and absolutely no references have been included since its creation. Furthermore, there is no notable reason why there should even be an article covering this topic.

CSD and PROD have both been denied, and despite being tagged for multiple issues, there has been no effort by anyone to improve the article. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm currently improving the article. Besides, this article is as important as the Comparison of Android devices article. --Lprd2007 (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my nomination, so to any admin who stops by, feel free to close. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 16:33, 7 February 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) 23:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ark (search engine)[edit]

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

Non-notable search engine created by a WP:COI editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 23:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The COI is bad, but no reason to delete. The interest from Y Combinator is enough (just enough, so far) to convince me that it's worth keeping. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be notable per the three sources there; also, I believe that more sources can be out there. I will take a look and reassess if needed. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Ark" is a challenge to search for, but there is also an AllThingsD article on the company. I am dubious about the DailyCal being considered reliable, but even without it, there look to be multiple independent sources from reliable publishers, so that the company, if not the search engine, seems notable. I agree that the the COI is bad, but given the notability, it is not a reason to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete side has a substantial majority despite spirited defenses by WIKIWIZDOM and KennKramer, and looking at the arguments, it seems that both the numbers and the governing guidelines and policies support deletion.

The argument in the "delete" vote seems well grounded in policy. The article references extensively an article by Vera W. de Spinadel (for some reason linked to a top page, but the article in question is probably this one to cover the phyllotaxis sections, yet while that reference gives extensive coverage on Fibonacci numbers and metallic means, no mention at all is made of hyperbolic or Lucas functions. Stringing together different topics to give support to another topic is considered excellent practice in academia when this is done correctly, but on Wikipedia, this is considered original research by synthesis. Several of the delete votes have expressed concern that this part of the article constitutes a fringe theory.

The argument of notability is also relevant. Most academic articles provide results of some new research, that is after all the purpose of academic journals. However, the new theory that comes from each of these articles does not usually create a new and notable topic that is suitable for Wikipedia. Notability guidelines emphasize independent sourcing, which means that a new idea should be utilized or analyzed in a non-trivial manner (e.g. not mere citations) by independent sources before being considered as a topic for Wikipedia. The Russian references provided by Kmarinas86 are relevant but having looked at some of the material using Google Translate, it is far from clear that the references to Stakhov go beyond the citation level.

In response to the last note by KennKramer note that Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reflects what the current consensus is on the topics that we cover. KennKramer points out that "As a rule, all new math concepts initially met a resistance from the mathematical community.", however that is not a reason to include this particular topic on Wikipedia. As a philosophical matter, those concepts that met resistance initially but are accepted today are the ones that you see. What is less easy to see is the much larger number of novel ideas and concepts that met initial resistance and that never emerged from obscurity, and probably never will emerge from obscurity. Wikipedia cannot speculate on which of the currently obscure ideas will eventually emerge to become widely covered topics, nor can Wikipedia pass judgement about which of these ideas ought to emerge from obscurity.

With the numbers clearly in favor of deletion, and with those arguments solidly backed up by policy and guideline, there is a rough consensus in this debate for deleting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions[edit]

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

The subject of this article on mathematics is not notable. The mathematical content of the article consists in results that are trivial consequences of known theories, typically that of linear recurrences. When these known theories are cited in the article, this results always of my edits. Instead of referring to knowns theories, the article cites only non-notable publications that, for most of them, are not reliably published. The part of the article devoted to phylotaxis is a blatent WP:fringe theory and I suspect that it is also pseudo-science. See the talk page for more details D.Lazard (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete Per Lazard, basically. As far as I can see, the topic doesn't seem to be major enough for encyclopedic treatment: the Google search with ""Hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions" -stakhov" is very discouraging. It is often hard to show something not-notable. But, absent convincing counter-evidence, I have to go with "non-notable". -- Taku (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taku. Its unclear why your Google search with "Hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions" has led you to discouraging results. Google search, made by me, led me to find more than 30 articles on the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions, published in reputable journals such as, Physics Letters, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Communications in Theoretical Physics, International Journal of Contemporary Mathematical Sciences, Applied Mathematics and Computation, Complex Geometry, Patterns, and Scaling in Nature and Society, International Journal of Physical Sciences, World Journal of Modelling and Simulation, Nonlinear Dynamics, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, Artificial Intelligence Conference Proceedings, Journal of Applied Mathematics, Journal of Mathematics, etc. All of these articles are listed in the section “Further reading”.WIKIWIZDOM (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— WIKIWIZDOM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Notice. Independent source material is largely in the Russian language: It is highly probable that the attention on this mathematical subject is strongly Russian in origin. The Russian spelling for "the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions" is "гиперболическими функциями Фибоначчи и Люка". "гиперболическими" is Russian for "hyperbolic". "функциями" is Russian for "functions". "Фибоначчи" is Russian "Fibonacci". "Люка" is Russian for "Lucas". The Russian spelling for the name "Stakhov" is "Стахов" or "Стахова" (if followed by "and".

2380 results for "Hyperbolic functions" Fibonacci: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22гиперболических+функций%22+Фибоначчи+

1700 results (%71 of total) for "Hyperbolic functions" Fibonacci -Stakhov -site:trinitas.ru -site:goldenmuseum.com: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22гиперболических+функций%22+Фибоначчи+-Стахов+-Стахова+-site%3Atrinitas.ru+-site%3Agoldenmuseum.com

1320 results for "Hyperbolic function Fibonacci": https://www.google.com/search?q=%22гиперболических+функций+Фибоначчи%22

9 results (<%1 of total) for "Hyperbolic function Fibonacci" -Stakhov -site:trinitas.ru -site:goldenmuseum.com: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22гиперболических+функций+Фибоначчи%22+-Стахов+-Стахова+-site%3Atrinitas.ru+-site%3Agoldenmuseum.com

762 results for "Hyperbolic functions" Lucas: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22гиперболических+функций%22+Люка+

182 results (%24 of total) for "Hyperbolic functions" Lucas -Stakhov -site:trinitas.ru -site:goldenmuseum.com: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22гиперболических+функций%22+Люка+-Стахов+-Стахова+-site%3Atrinitas.ru+-site%3Agoldenmuseum.com

3 results for "Hyperbolic function Lucas": https://www.google.com/search?q=%22гиперболических+функций+Люка%22

0 results (%0 of total) for "Hyperbolic function Lucas" -Stakhov -site:trinitas.ru -site:goldenmuseum.com: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22гиперболических+функций+Люка%22+-Стахов+-Стахова+-site%3Atrinitas.ru+-site%3Agoldenmuseum.com

889 results for "Hyperbolic functions Fibonacci and Lucas": https://www.google.com/search?q=%22гиперболических+функций+Фибоначчи+и+Люка%22

3 results (<%1 of total)for "Hyperbolic functions Fibonacci and Lucas" -Stakhov -site:trinitas.ru -site:goldenmuseum.com: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22гиперболических+функций+Фибоначчи+и+Люка%22+-Стахов+-Стахова+-site%3Atrinitas.ru+-site%3Agoldenmuseum.com

We can also perform this analysis in the Ukrainian language. Stakov, after all, is from the Ukraine. "Гиперболические функции Фибоначчи" -Стахов translates to "hyperbolic functions Fibonacci" -Stakhov without English word order, or "hyperbolic Fibonacci functions" -Stakhov with English word order in place.

1380 results for "Hyperbolic functions" Fibonacci: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Гіперболічні+функції%22+Фібоначчі

1220 results (%88 of total) for "Hyperbolic functions" Fibonacci -Stakhov -site:trinitas.ru -site:goldenmuseum.com: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Гіперболічні+функції%22+Фібоначчі+-Стахов+-Стахова+-site%3Atrinitas.ru+-site%3Agoldenmuseum.com

8 results for "Hyperbolic functions Fibonacci": https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Гіперболічні+функції+Фібоначчі%22+

2 results (%25 of total) for "Hyperbolic functions Fibonacci" -Stakhov -site:trinitas.ru -site:goldenmuseum.com: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Гіперболічні+функції+Фібоначчі%22+-Стахов+-Стахова+-site%3Atrinitas.ru+-site%3Agoldenmuseum.com

Lucas translates to Лукас in Ukrainian:

5 results for "Hyperbolic functions" Lucas: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Гіперболічні+функції%22+Лукас+

1 result (%20 of total) for "Hyperbolic functions" Lucas -Stakhov: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Гіперболічні+функції%22+Лукас+-Стахов+-Стахова

No result for "Hyperbolic function Lucas" -Stakhov -site:trinitas.ru -site:goldenmuseum.com: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Гіперболічні+функції+Лукас%22+-Стахов+-Стахова+-site%3Atrinitas.ru+-site%3Agoldenmuseum.com

The results for the full search term "Hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas Functions" in Ukrainian are overwhelmingly Stakhov's.

It would be fair to say that, considered separately, the Hyperbolic Fibonacci functions could shown to be notable if the value of articles not contributed to by Stakhov can be demonstrated. We cannot say the same for the Hyperbolic Lucas functions. I already previously voted to Move [this article] to Fibonacci Hyperbolic functions or Fibonacci functions. The above search analysis has solidified my position.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 23:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: I would like to add that Fibonacci matrices (1,900 results) and Golden matrices (1,660 results) are already studied in Western mainstream literature and they are related to the functions under question. Fibonacci matrices and Golden matrices may have been better articles for WIKIWIZDOM to start with, and neither article exists as of current. As it stands, both potential articles appear to be due for realization.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 01:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search on Google scholar for "Hyperbolic Fibonacci" yields no independent reliable references for hyperbolic Fibonacci functions. The study of phyllotaxis in botany is mainstream and the connection of certain kinds of phyllotaxy with Fibonacci and Lucas numbers and the golden ratio is well-established. But the connection of hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions with phyllotaxis, along with "metallic proportions" and a "hyperbolic world" comprise a fringe theory, in the sense of having few adherents among investigators of phyllotaxis. Finally, I'll note that what are called the hyperbolic Fibonacci sine and cosines in the article are already defined in the article Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers, where they don't merit a separate name and also don't have reliable sources referenced. The lack of notability of hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions suggests that this article should be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark viking. The paper Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers has a link to the article on the Internet http://web.archive.org/web/20091027103713/http://geocities.com/hjsmithh/Fibonacc/FibWhat.html published online in 2004. That article dose in fact, described the hyperbolic Fibonacci sine and cosine. But the first time, a new class of hyperbolic functions was described in Stakhov and Tkachenko article, published as a preprint in 1988. In 1993, these authors published a paper Stakhov AP Tkachenko IS. Fibonacci hyperbolic trigonometry. Proceedings of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 208, № 7, 1993. , Pp. 9-14 (Russian). The Journal Proceedings of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences which is a very reliable source. Therefore, the priority in the introduction of the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions belongs to Ukrainian mathematician Stakhov and Tkachenko (1993). So to prioritise the 2004 article http://web.archive.org/web/20091027103713/http://geocities.com/hjsmithh/Fibonacc/FibWhat.html over the Stakhov and Tkachenko’s article (1993) is incorrect and is a violation of scientific ethics. This article is based on Stakhov and Rozin’s article On a new class of hyperbolic function. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 2004, 23 (2): 379-389. This article gives a detailed description of the theory of hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions and corresponding mathematical identities.WIKIWIZDOM (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is based on Stakhov and Rozin’s article — that does indeed seem to be the cause of some of the problems other users are finding. This raises the issue of whether the article might be a copyvio [28]. Deltahedron (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deltahedron you can clearly see that it is not a copyvio, when I said this article is based on Stakhov and Rozin’s article I meant it is based (not copied) on their ideas, if other users have a problem they are free to add and improve the article as they see fit, is that not the whole idea of wikipedia.WIKIWIZDOM (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that assurance. Deltahedron (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice on actual results on Google Scholar:

Results for гиперболическими функциями "Фибоначчи и Люка" -site:trinitas.ru -site:peacefromharmony.org -site:trinitas.pro on Google Scholar (18) (Google Translate)

"гиперболическими функциями 'Фибоначчи и Люка'" Translates to: "hyperbolic functions 'fibonacci and lucas'".

List of domains from participating Russian and Ukranian academic institutions, per Results for гиперболическими функциями "Фибоначчи и Люка" -site:trinitas.ru -site:peacefromharmony.org -site:trinitas.pro search on Google Scholar (Google Translate)

Sincerely, siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 02:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two major issues with this article. The first is that the strictly mathematical content is rather unoriginal and has been rediscovered numerous times. The proper place for the material so-called hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions, which are trivial variants of the ordinary hyperbolic functions, would be at Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers. The second is that the application to Phyllotaxis appears to be a fringe theory, and the article is currently expounding this material as if it were established main-stream science. Deltahedron (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim down - the general concepts appear to be real and notable, although some of the cruft may have to be removed. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article update[edit]

I have added 3 new sections to the article in order to give more depth to key aspects of this topic.

Hyperbolic geometry of phyllotaxis
Generalised Cassini formula for the Fibonacci λ-numbers
Hilbert’s Fourth Problem

I hope this additional information will convince the critics in the notability and importance of this article as well as stop it being threatened by deletion.WIKIWIZDOM (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Old wine in new bottles. Much of this material is standard, but dressed up to look like a new discovery, and much of the rest is just crankery. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein can you elaborate on your comment, otherwise it sounds like a very vague opinionated statement. WIKIWIZDOM (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to re-post here my last message from the Talk page of this article, that has not had a reply from the "critics" since the 28 January 2013. Hope it helps in reaching the final decision regarding the importance of this article.

I admit that in Lucas's work (1878) and, probably, Barker's work (1968), the mathematical formulas similar to formulas for the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions have been introduced. In these works, these mathematical formulas are not treated as a new class of hyperbolic functions. Therefore, we cannot find in these works the mathematical relations, that are in Table 1 (recursive properties) and especially in Table 2 (hyperbolic properties). In Wikipedia’s articles “Fibonacci numbers” and “Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers” we cannot find the identities that are listed in the Table 1 and 2 of the article. The statement, that these formulas are very simple and their proof can be made by students, cannot be used as an argument against the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions. The Identities for hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions were first proved in the article by Stakhov AP Tkachenko IS. Fibonacci hyperbolic trigonometry. Proceedings of the UkrainianAcademy of Sciences, Vol. 208, № 7, 1993. , pp. 9-14 (Russian) published by the recommendation of the prominent Ukrainian mathematician academician Yuri Mitropolsky. Journal «Proceedings of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences» which is sufficiently authoritative source and academician Yuri Mitroposky is a reputable mathematician; this demands a serious reaction to this article. In 1996, Prof. Alexey Stakhov made a speech «The Golden Section and Modern Harmony Mathematics» at the 7th International Conference "Fibonacci Numbers and Their Applications" (Austria, Graz, July 15-19, 1996). In this speech Stakhov outlined the foundations of the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions. Stakhov’s speech attracted attention of Fibonacci-mathematicians and was selected for the publication in the book «Applications of Fibonacci Numbers" (see Stakhov AP. The Golden Section and Modern Harmony Mathematics. Applications of Fibonacci Numbers, Volume 7, 1998, pp. 393 - 399). Publication of this article is evidence that in 1996 the Fibonacci-mathematicians and American Fibonacci-Association recognised the introduction of a new class of hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions. Another proof of the recognition of this class of hyperbolic functions is the publication of the article by Trzaska, ZW On Fibonacci Hyperbolic Trigonometry and Modified Numerical Triangles. Fibonacci Quarterly. 34, 129-138, 1996. The editorial board of the most authoritative journal in this field «The Fibonacci Quarterly" did not have any doubt regarding the fact that this article contained original mathematical material, unknown to Fibonacci-mathematicians, despite the fact that before Trashka's article (1996) Edward Lucas’s article (1878) and Barker’s article (1968) published on a similar subject, but not the same one. It follows from this, that Edward Lucas’s work (1878) and Barker’s work (1968) are not repeated in Trashka’s article, which was published in “The Fibonacci Quarterly” by the decision of the editorial board. Finally, in 2009, «World Scientific" has published a book Stakhov AP The Mathematics of Harmony. From Euclid to Contemporary Mathematics and Computer Science. New Jersey,London, Singapore, Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taipei, Chennai: World Scientific, 2009. - 748 p. http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6635. Chapter 5 is called Hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions. There are also 30 original articles of other authors, published in fairly reputable international journals between 2004 and 2013 as development of the article by Stakhov A, Rozin B. on a new class of hyperbolic functions. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2004, 23(2): 379–389. This fact is additional evidence that this subject is developing in the modern science and mathematics. It is important to note that another key theory in the evolution of this subject is "Bodnar’s geometry." This geometry shows that the geometry of phyllotaxis is a special kind of hyperbolic geometry, based on the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions. This means that Nature uses the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions. This is why, the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions can be seen as a fundamental aspect of modern mathematics. The above stated has led me to the conclusion that the criticism of this article, by D.Lazard and Deltahedron and other editors, is not justified and prejudiced. This is not constructive criticism or help in collectively improving the article in the spirit of Wikipedia, it has only one intention - to remove the article by any means. This criticism is a contradiction to the undisputed recognition of the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions by the American Fibonacci-Association and Fibonacci-mathematicians all over the world. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion in its current tone, to be honest this whole experience has left me with a rather negative feeling. By writing this article and spending my time, all I was trying to do is share worthwhile information for the benefit of the community, I accept this article required improvement like all others but instead of help I am confronted with cynicism and marginalisation. If you think that the deletion of this article and suppression of this information are beneficial and constructive, then I am not interested in continuing this discussion any longer... WIKIWIZDOM (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIWIZDOM (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment criticism of this article, by D.Lazard and Deltahedron and other editors, is not justified and prejudiced is not a helpful argument in deciding whether or not to retain this article. Deltahedron (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deltahedron what would indeed be helpful is if you responded to my last statement and explain why you still think this topic is not worthy of a page in Wikipedia. Even though it has a long history and is accepted and well documented by reputable international mathematical publications (print and web) and mathematicians around the world. Besides the fact that this is not some mathematical oddity but a subject derived from the laws of Nature with a myriad of potential applications and is a basis for further discoveries linking to natural sciences. I simply don't understand how you fail to see this.WIKIWIZDOM (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: ....by paying more attention to his own select quotation rather than the main pattern of your argument. This fallacy is called "Wrenching from context".siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 19:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a combination of (a) material covered elsewhere and (b) WP:FRINGE material backed up by unreliable references. -- 202.124.73.54 (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

In reference to the personal attack: That IP address belongs to 3G Mobile devices. Not all IP addresses remain fixed to the same device. Notice how some the edits stem from years back. Please do not assume them as being from the same person.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 20:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, in response to the IP, there is also (c), material that applies neither to (a) nor (b). Whether that constitutes a small or large part of the article is irrelevant. The article can be trimmed and moved to a different article, and it does not have to be an old one.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 20:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (1) The mathematics is trivial, and most of it is covered elsewhere; (2) What is not covered elsewhere is not notable; (3) The connection to botany is a fringe theory. These have all been established above by other editors. Ozob (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MarkViking, and because although the general topic is notable this is not. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Fibonacci Hyperbolic functions or Fibonacci functions. Being a "consequence of known theories" hardly qualifies any mathematics as trivial. A significant portion of higher mathematics can be derived from a more elementary set of operations. Wolfram MathWorld has an entry on Fibonacci Hyperbolic functions (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FibonacciHyperbolicFunctions.html). Hyperbolic Lucas functions are not quite notable at the moment however, so the article may need some pruning once it's moved. Regards, siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 19:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment:

“

Binet's formula expresses explicitly the Fibonacci and Lucas numbers through the golden ratio

\Phi ={\frac {1+{\sqrt {5))}{2))

, as a function of a integer variable n. Binet's formula may be written as follows:^[2]

(1)\quad L_{n}={\begin{cases}\Phi ^{n}+\Phi ^{-n}&{\text{ for ))n=2k;\\\Phi ^{n}-\Phi ^{-n}&{\text{ for ))n=2k+1\end{cases))

(2)\quad F_{n}={\begin{cases}{\frac {\Phi ^{n}+\Phi ^{-n)){\sqrt {5))}&{\text{ for ))n=2k+1;\\{\frac {\Phi ^{n}-\Phi ^{-n)){\sqrt {5))}&{\text{ for ))n=2k\end{cases))

”

“

Binet's formula, as written in (1) and (2), suggests to introduce the following hyperbolic functions of a real variable x.^[3]^[4]

Hyperbolic Fibonacci sine

(3)\quad {\rm {sFs))(x)={\frac {\Phi ^{x}\,-\,\Phi ^{-x)){\sqrt {5))}={\frac {2}{\sqrt {5))}\sinh(x\log \Phi )

Hyperbolic Fibonacci cosine

(4)\quad {\rm {cFs))(x)={\frac {\Phi ^{x}\,+\,\Phi ^{-x)){\sqrt {5))}={\frac {2}{\sqrt {5))}\cosh(x\log \Phi )

Hyperbolic Lucas sine

(5)\quad {\rm {sLs))(x)=\Phi ^{x}-\Phi ^{-x}=2\,\sinh(x\log \Phi )

Hyperbolic Lucas cosine

(6)\quad {\rm {cLs))(x)=\Phi ^{x}+\Phi ^{-x}=2\,\cosh(x\log \Phi )

”

While to the untrained eye this seems to be trivial, please keep in mind the significance of the Hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions goes beyond simply being a consequence of a recurrence relation. Can you say that all other recurrence relations have the form x^n ± x^(-n) divided by constant (or none at all)? An informed individual can clearly understand that, no, not every recurrence relation will have that form. Is this trivial? Of course it isn't.

“

The hyperbolic functions are:

Hyperbolic sine:

\sinh x={\frac {e^{x}-e^{-x)){2))

Hyperbolic cosine:

\cosh x={\frac {e^{x}+e^{-x)){2))

”

To think that this is trivial is to say that a majority of recurrence relations can have this mathematical structure. That is impossible.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 03:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All very well, but is this a !vote for "keep" or "delete", or what? And why? Which Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions are you making here? Deltahedron (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... just scroll up. You will find the answers to your questions.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 16:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that these recurrence relations lead to a cute formula, and therefore they are interesting. Count me unconvinced; nothing I see in the article is more than a simple application of well-known facts about linear recurrences. Ozob (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't know a formula could be "cute". Perhaps you could elaborate as to why you think I am saying that?siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 16:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, that the opponents of this article ignore a number of indisputable facts, which are evidence of recognition of the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions:

1. The most authoritative journal in this field «The Fibonacci Quarterly" published in 1996 the article of Polish mathematician Trzaska, ZW On Fibonacci Hyperbolic Trigonometry and Modified Numerical Triangles. Fibonacci Quarterly. 34, 129-138, 1996. This fact is recognition of the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions by American Fibonacci Association. It is difficult to assume that the editorial board of «The Fibonacci Quarterly" did not know Binet formulas and Lucas article (1878), which was published by the Fibonacci Association in 1969

2. In 1996, Prof. Alexey Stakhov made a speech «The Golden Section and Modern Harmony Mathematics» at the 7th International Conference "Fibonacci Numbers and Their Applications" (Austria, Graz, July 15-19, 1996). In this speech Stakhov outlined the foundations of the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions. Stakhov's speech attracted attention of Fibonacci-mathematicians and was selected for the publication in the book «Applications of Fibonacci Numbers" (see Stakhov AP. The Golden Section and Modern Harmony Mathematics. Applications of Fibonacci Numbers, Volume 7, 1998, pp. 393 - 399). I would like to remind that the editors of the book Applications of Fibonacci Numbers, Volume 7, 1998 are the most famous Fibonacci-mathematicians GE Bergum, AN Philippou, AF Horadam. This is the additional evidence of the importance of the article “Hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas Functions”

3. From the moment of Binet and Lucas works (19 c.) Fibonacci-mathematicians did not notice Binet formulas and not interpret them as a new class of hyperbolic functions. This was done in 1993 by the Ukrainian mathematician Stakhov and Tkachenko (Stakhov AP Tkachenko IS. Fibonacci hyperbolic trigonometry. Proceedings of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 208, № 7, 1993., Pp. 9-14). Since then, a new class of hyperbolic functions attracted for attention of mathematicians and is actively developing in modern science and mathematics.

In my opinion, the article “Hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas Functions” should be kept in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennKramer (talk • contribs) 23:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— KennKramer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As a rule, all new math concepts initially met a resistance from the mathematical community. In this respect, the most famous example is the introduction of complex numbers . They appeared in mathematics in the 16th century. Many mathematicians considered that these new mathematical objects are very mysterious. Only after about 1800, a number of mathematicians, including Gauss, realized that the complex numbers have very simple geometric interpretation. They correspond to directed segments in the plane. Full recognition of the complex numbers as the most important mathematical objects can be attributed to the 30s of the 19th century.

Apparently, something similar happened with the introduction of the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions. The researches of great mathematicians Binet and Luka in the 19th century prepared foundation for the introduction of a new class of hyperbolic functions based on the "golden mean." But if we will be honest, we must admit that Binet and Luka did not start the interpretation of their formulas (in particular, Binet’s formulas) as the hyperbolic functions. This was first done by the Ukrainian mathematician Stakhov and Tkachenko in 1993.

These functions got further development in the article of Polish mathematician Trashka, who translated Stakhov and Tkachenko‘s article into English and published this material in «The Fibonacci Quarterly" (1996). Stakhov and Rosin’s article (2004) introduced the so-called symmetrical hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions, which underlie the basis of the article "The hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions." This is a brief history of the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions.

But why these functions met unexpected resistance from experts Wikipedia? In the Russian language there is proverb "Silenus hindsight." Wikipedia’s experts suddenly saw in these wonderful functions something, that they did not notice before, namely, their elementary quality (“exercises for students”) and their direct connection with Binet and Lucas researches. But Stakhov and Tkachenko do not deny the connection of a new class of hyperbolic functions with the Binet and Lucas works. Stakhov and Tkachenko’s merit consists in the fact that they are the PIONEERS in this field. They have introduced a concept of hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions. This concept has been recognized by modern mathematical community, including Fibonacci Association. I believe that the article "Hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions" should be kept at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennKramer (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 February 2013‎

KennKramer. In the history of mathematics, there is a strange tradition: the mathematicians (even very famous) do not always appreciate truly the mathematical achievements of their contemporaries. Examples - a huge amount. Let us remember one example, related to the topic of hyperbolic geometry. The famous Russian mathematician academician Ostrogradski gave in 19 c. sharply negative assessment of hyperbolic geometry by Lobachevski. Ostrogradskii called hyperbolic geometry "pseudoscientific theory" unworthy not only mathematician but even simple math teacher. The Russian Academy of Sciences does not like to remember this infamous case,. When we read some of the arguments of Wikipedia experts against the hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions ("exercises for students», “old wine in new bottles” and so on), there arises the impression that the history is repeating. I urge not make Ostrogradski mistake and to leave the article "Hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions" in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.223.22 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Ursini[edit]

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

This living person is not an encyclopedic subject because he is not notable: he is not the subject of any substantial coverage by any independent reliable source. Though it's difficult to tell what the claim to notability would be, WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:PROFESSOR seem most applicable; the subject fails each guideline readily. He is never the actual topic of coverage, and when he is published, those works are not so thoroughly cited as to carry the subject over notability's academic finish line with nothing more. JFHJr (㊟) 00:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he has a PhD then he is a published, peer-reviewed researcher. It's pretty hard to exclude those qualifications as non-noteworthy. Яεñ99 (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply — Having a PhD alone is not sufficient to establish encyclopedic noteworthiness. If you feel otherwise, please show a guideline or policy or essay or something to support your position. JFHJr (㊟) 05:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, it's not my responsibility to prove your point :) I'm sticking to meh point above! I'll toss this in real quick: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. - a PhD and his other participations as referenced should cover that :) Яεñ99 (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to argue whether all of his things combined would back your point up, but having a PhD doesn't necessarily mean he's made an impact, let alone a significant one. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ren, stay civil. It's not your responsibility to prove my point (not notable subject) but it IS your responsibility to support your own contentions (PhD means notable per WP:PROFESSOR), which are way out in left field, rather than just asserting that impact must have happened. Ta. JFHJr (㊟) 14:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The above discussion about his PhD is obviously irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether he's notable in Wikipedia terms. However, he seems to be a prolific writer who is mentioned in assorted reviews and news sources as an expert on various aspects of film history,[29] and GScholar shows that he's cited quite a bit.[30] If some decently substantial reviews of some of his works can be turned up, a case might be made. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't fret the title so much, but make sure you understand what is meant by a PhD in the American usage - it's not just having one - it's that he generated a body of peer-reviewed, published research to earn one, and followed it with a great quantity of publishings and referenced material as demonstrated. If you don't understand how it fits together, I'd be glad to explain in a talk page rather than place more here. Яεñ99 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fwiw, I count a Gscholar h-index of 11 or so using the link above, but it's the links at Gnews that convince me this is a pass of WP:AUTHOR. Ray^Talk 17:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My Gnews results are mostly passing mention, the subject talking about something else (not coverage of him), and the subject's name as author of works. Can you offer any results you found that indicate coverage of Ursini, especially that would give way to any amount of encyclopedically biographical detail? JFHJr (㊟) 23:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a high school teacher, who has co-written some books about film and provided commentaries on some DVDs. The only source provided in the article is IMDb (not a reliable source) plus citations to two of his own books. I am not finding much in the way of citations at Google Scholar and I don't find any reviews of his books. I don't find anything at all ABOUT him in independent reliable sources. Possible copyvio: the article appears to be a verbatim copy of his bio at Amazon.com.[31] --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by this I think Amazon is lifting Wikipedia articles to use on their site. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PhD discussion irrelevant: true. High-school teacher: true. However, Ursini seems to be one of these special cases who, despite not working in an environment conducive to scholarship, has become an acknowledged expert through a hefty corpus of work. He has published numerous books, the important points being (1) many of them have respectable institutional holdings, e.g. >700 for The noir style and >500 for Film noir reader, with many of his other books ~200, which alone is arguably sufficient for WP:PROF #1, (2) his books have been cited around 400 times in GS, (3) he has been referred to as an expert on film noir in mainstream publications, e.g. "from film noir experts James Ursini and Alain Silver" in Lansing State Journal of Jun 29, 2005 (unfortunately behind a paywall). I concede that the article is a mess, essentially an unsourced resume started by a WP:SPA account. It should probably be stubbed until proper sourced info can be added. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep per Agricola44, who summarizes the evidence well. I'll be happier when we quote from a few reliable-source reviews of his work, but as Agricola44 says, there are so many references to him as an expert that I think keeping this is worthwhile. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google news and highbeam both show a lot of published reviews of his books, DVD commentaries, and lectures that (while generally brief) paint a picture of him as being well-known for what he does. For instance, a 2007 review of his The Gangster Film Reader in the Palm Beach Post writes that "Alain Silver and James Ursini are undoubtedly the leading experts on film noir" [32]. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Víctimas del Pecado[edit]

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

Much of the information on this movie has been directly copied from reviews. The article is bias and is not notable, and is unsupported by third-party sources. Aeroplanepics0112 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Meets WP:NF. Rewrite plot section, and expand through available sources.[33] This film was nominated for 2 Mexican Academy of Film Ariel Awards in 1952. More, the film had wide international distribution under different titles,[34] and has screened at retrospectives more than five years after initial release.[35][36][37][38] We do not delete notable topics simply because the article suffers from addressable issues. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Since nomination, the plot section has been improved, a few sources have been added, and the reception section has been tagged for additional cleanup and sourcing. It would be helpful if editors able to read Spanish add sources. Will need input from the Spanish cinema task force. Per WP:NRVE, see Google scholar and Google book results. Simply being unknown here, does not make a topic somehow unnotable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per oscar nominations. LenaLeonard (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, per our notability standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Notable under many points of view. Cavarrone (talk) 08:04, 5 February 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.