< 23 June	25 June >

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. This was an interesting discussion that was heading for a "delete" result, but after three editors struck their !votes, the consensus is clearly to keep the article. There is a consensus that the subject passes WP:PROF #1, but many editors argued that WP:GNG is satisfied regardless of the standing under WP:PROF (non-admin closure). St Anselm (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. J. Gagnon[edit]

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

I see no evidence of this person passing the GNG or WP:PROF. He's in the news a bit for hating gays (if I believe what I see on the internet), but I see no in-depth coverage in mainstream media. Nor do I see that his "academic" work has received serious reviews in academic journals. Let's note also that his books don't seem to have been published by major academic or theological presses. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:GNG due to the lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. I have repeatedly asked those interested in expanding the article to add such sources, to no avail. Comment I withdraw my recommendation due to the analysis by DGG.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A great deal of effort (see Talk:Robert A. J. Gagnon) has gone into finding sources and finding balanced things a biography can say about this person. Other than his degrees and the fact that he has published books, we've drawn a blank. There are sources that comment on this person and his works, but they're not reliable. As noted above, the books are do not appear to be significant in an academic sense. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears that at least one of his books is very widely held – please see below. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why does every sports person who has played one professional game, every street musician, every bit part actor, every kid who went on X Factor and Got Talent, and every small town hack and painter merit an article on the flimsiest of sources, while life-long academics have to jump through a whole page of hoops? The answer to my own question is 'I don't know', but as I am pledged to uphold and implement policy at Wikipedia, I have to say that this article clearly fails to meet those criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya. I think the answer is this: there are independent sports encyclopedias that cover every athlete that has ever played a professional game; there is nothing similar for academics. I also find this annoying. Not quite as annoying as the low bar special guidelines for porn stars... A camel is a horse built by a committee, they say, and WP's special guidelines are definitely committee-made. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"there are independent sports encyclopedias that cover every athlete that has ever played a professional game; there is nothing similar for academics." A glance at WP:Prof shows this statement to be false. The citation indices play a much more comphrehensive part than sports records. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I can sympathize with both Kudpung and Carrite here. I will buy the "played one professional game" notability guideline, for reasons that Tim (Carrite) points out. As for street musicians (and garage bands), and local young painters, starting actors and untalented (in my opinion) talent show participants, I resolve today to vote "delete" unless the GNG is indisputably met. But there are some relatively unrecognized painters with long careers who have accumulated the chops to deserve an article here. Museum exhibits and art journal reviews over the decades add up, as I see it. It ain't promotional if the guy or gal is dead, in my opinion, unless some gallery is flogging their work. In the end, a strict reading of the GNG ought to be our guiding star. As for the porn "stars", I would set a far higher notability bar if I had my way, but am not interested in kamikaze missions. Or compulsive handwashing after editing sessions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Criteria for WP:Prof#1 include scholarly cites. On Google scholar these are 22, 10, 7, 7, 4 to give an h-index of 4. Although theology is a very poorly cited subject, this index is extremely low. Maybe too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. On second thought, after reviewing the article talk page, I think he may pass WP:GNG for the controversy raised by his views on homosexuality. However, nothing of that controversy, nor the sources raised on the talk page concerning it, are present in the article as nominated. If the article is to remain as it is, a neutered piece that makes him look like an uncontroversial and non-notable religious scholar, it must be deleted, because it omits the basis for his notability and is also problematic from the point of view of WP:NPOV. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you've read the talk page, you'll know out absolute lack of reliable sources to make this anything other than 'a neutered piece' is what bought us here. Unless you can find reliable sources on the controversy, that's not going to change. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I saw what looked a lot like sources listed there. But unless we can get a consensus to include that material in the article, which looks unlikely at this point, it doesn't make much difference whether I !vote to delete because of a failure of WP:PROF or because of a failure of WP:NPOV, does it? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For non-STEM subject areas, we normally place heavy importance on book holdings. WorldCat shows Gagnon's book "The Bible and homosexual practice" to be held by >500 institutions, a hefty figure for an academic's text. I agree that the secondary sources are thin, but the article can be stubbed until such become available, especially since the talk page suggests his controversial standing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Note that that library holdings can be skewed by mass donations of books which can be part of outreach by certain advocacy organisations, which makes such measures less reliable. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is bald assertion and an oblique accusation that such actually applies in this case. Does it? The fact is that the metric of institutional holdings is used routinely here at academics' AfD to evaluate notability of professors in the humanities. Note that there are well-known ways to game all bibliometrics, including citations. Unless there's obvious and conclusive proof of monkey business, we always give strong weight to the relevant bibliometrics. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete As failing WP:PROF in general, regardless of the subject's apparent polarization of his favorite topic, which is apparently not enough to raise above basic notability as of now. I was involved in the talk page discussions and I have to admit I doubted there was much here from the first revdel that brought the bio to WP:BLP/N. As to the point about book holdings, it might be possible that the work is more notable than the author, and perhaps if that continues to be the case and someone bothers to create an article for his book then this can be re-created as a redirect or something. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An author's notability has precedence to that of his/her work. In other words, notability of a work implies notability of an author. Agricola44 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

That is a classic WP:INHERIT arguement and doesn't hold water. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. WP:INHERIT is mainly for relationships that are incidental, e.g. a person is not necessarily notable just because their parent is notable. This is rather a cause-and-effect relationship (author begets book). The difference is crucial to understand (though note the converse is not true: i.e. not every book written by a notable author is itself notable). There are many examples that directly support this argument, perhaps the most compelling being the following: Harper Lee wrote only a single work, To Kill a Mockingbird. The latter is certainly notable and this implies notability of the former – hence the article on Lee. By your logic, there would be grounds to delete the article on Lee, which is obvious nonsense. The fact stands that >500 institutional book holdings by an academic author far exceeds what we conventionally take as the minimum for this bibliometric to satisfy WP:PROF in the humanities. Thanks so much, Agricola44 (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

How many of Gagnon's books won a Pulitzer and became classics of modern literature? Comparing Gagnon to Lee is comparing apples with oranges and a weak reason to reject WP:INHERIT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that a book has to have won a Pulitzer in order for its author to be notable? That's patent nonsense. The point, which I'm not sure I can make any more simple, is that notability of produced work confers notability for its creator. That is the crux of WP:PROF c1 and how the vast majority of academics on WP come to be here. Again, the book has holdings that exceed what we have conventionally required for PROF 1. Why do so many panelists here seem to be insisting that Gagnon must be held to a much-higher-than-normal standard than what we routinely use? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Read what I said, and not between the lines - the tone is getting to be as familiar as the article's talk page discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you offered was merely a back-handed statement about needing a Pulitzer to be notable, which is indeed nonsensical: Lee is simply an obvious example of a person who is notable because they authored precisely one important book. The bottom line in this case is a sequential argument that connects several observations: (A) Gagnon is a an academic, for which we almost always resort to WP:PROF for testing notability. (B) The vast majority of such cases are measured against WP:PROF c1, the crux of which is whether a person's work, in this case a book, "has made significant impact". (C) The assessment of impact is routinely made according to institutional book holdings for those academics working in the humanities. (D) Gagnon has authored a book that is held by >500 institutions. (E) 500 holdings is well-above what we have accepted in the past in numerous academics' AfDs as satisfying the "impact" clause. So, the implication is A → B → C → D → E → "notable" → "keep". As a disinterested observer who has never heard of this person or read this article before this AfD, I'm not sure how much more complicated it is than that. There's obviously a lot of baggage here with respect to the content of the article and it appears that the notability question was triggered by the honest but mistaken presumption that removing the objectionable content renders Gagnon not notable because there's not much that can be said about him. Notability does not depend upon what content can be put into an article. It is rather a property of the person. Gagnon clearly satisfies WP:PROF c1 and that's all we're here to evaluate. As I said above, if content is as big of a problem as it appears to be in this case, leave the article stubbed for now (much as it is at the moment). Thanks so much, Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

With regards to your alphabetical equation: Some kinds of articles are treated with rare exceptions and are even exempt from CSD-A7 but these precedents are clearly documented and supported by thousands of AfD closures - and I can cite those. Putting WP:OTHERSTUFF aside for a moment, can you cite some examples of Prof articles that have routinely and almost always met your criteria? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cited an example, but will not be bated into turning this into your strawman. I'd rather that you produce examples where we've deleted BLPs whose subjects obviously pass one or more parts of WP:PROF. Unless someone is claiming that >500 citations does not satisfy WP:PROF c1 (and so far no one is), the burden of proof lies with all you who want this article deleted, despite the subject obviously satisfying one of our standard notability guidelines. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

99% Possible Keep - Lots of sources found in the Google News archive search, so I'm sure this has to be a notable subject. EditorE (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately another invalid argument - per WP:SOURCESEARCH. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- News sources and his book are definitely his biggest claim to notability jj (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then those sources should be listed (preferably on the article talk page) and reviewed for validity per WP:RS and WP:V and WP:CORPDEPTH. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As we are discussing about his notability, those sources could be listed and discussed here. And WP:CORPDEPTH does not apply to people. Cavarrone 06:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Strong) Keep -- per Agricola44's citation of long precedent that hundreds of academic libraries holding a book is strong evidence of having made a substantial impact on the field. On a day when DOMA is struck down, I hate to defend anti-homosexual arguments, but notability is notability, regardless of the opinion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated above notability is notability. The subject is notable despite the opinions that offend some and please others. --Stormbay (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your strawman argument is duly noted. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good thing AfDs are not closed on a simple tally of the !votes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does it meet WP:GNG or not? I say it does, which is my opinion. Do I care whether this particular article stays or goes? Not really. I would like to see a reasonable decision made on the basis of the subjects notability. Stormbay (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Stormbay, there is one great way to show that an article meets the GNG: simply link to significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources . Can you link to such sources, Stormbay? Otherwise, in my opinion, your opinion is of little use in this debate, and can be discounted by the closing administrator. When I have looked for such sources, all I find are trivial passing mentions and the bylines of opinion columns. On the other hand, if you bring forward such independent sources, I will change my mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, I have reviewed the claimed "Lots of sources found in the Google News archive", they mainly consist in articles written by Gagnon and not about Gagnon, plus some extracts of a conference and some trivial mentions. He also has a couple of interviews for some obscure religion-related websites (eg [1]). Probably the only source that could provide some notability is this article. Too little to assume he's notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. Cavarrone 06:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The immediately preceding entries by Cullen³²⁸ and Cavarrone are trying to push us toward debating on WP:GNG, but that is irrelevant because it is already clear that Gagnon satisfies WP:PROF by virtue of the impact of his work. At the moment, the article is essentially a WP:NPOV-satisfying stub and can remain that way until such time that more WP:RS becomes available to expand the article. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The criterium of WP:PROF you are claiming is clearly met says " The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (stress mine). As far as I can understand the wording, this criterium is far from having been demonstrated/verified. Cavarrone 15:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and here is the disconnect. Demonstration of PROF c1 almost always comes from evaluating the citation or holding statistics (the former usually for STEM academics and the latter usually for humanities academics), as reported by independent and reliable databases (usually WoS, Scopus, etc. for STEM and WorldCat for humanities) and not from news sources and such that are the fodder of GNG. The informal, but highly conventional threshold having now been used in many hundreds of academics' AfDs is "a few hundred" (and this can be sliced-and-diced, for example this roughly equates to an h-index around 15 for scientists). Borderline cases are open to honest debate (often something like "we should require a little more/less here, since field X, Y, or Z is associated with more/less citations), but the WorldCat statistic of >500 holdings of Gagnon's books far exceeds the requirements we have regularly applied in the past. It may be appropriate for you to check some old AfDs for confirmation of what I'm claiming, or to save your time, simply check with some of the "senior statesmen" like David Eppstein or DGG. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The author of notable books are notable. Where it's a single book, the article should still be under the author because he may go on to do other things. As indeed this individual has done. But in this case, both his books are notable by NBOOK: The Bible and Homosexual Practice is published by /Abington ,a very respectable publisher in the field has been reviewed in Anglican Theological Review and Christian Century and Theology today. All of these are extended reviews and meet the requirement for substantial coverage. Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views in in 379 libraries, and is by Fortress Press, the most important conservative Protestant publisher. has been reviewed by : The Princeton Seminary bulletin. , Cross Currents, Toronto Journal Of Theology,, Neotestamentica ,Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology , and Feminist Journal of Theology. Agricola is in my opinion correct in his arguments. Professors are notable because of the academic work they do, just as baseball players for the games they play. For fields in which publication is chiefly by book, h values are irrelevant. some of the delete arguments leave me with the unfortunate impression that we ask for stricter standards when we do not like the person's views. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I'm glad to strike my vote on the basis of the sources you cites but I strongly rebut this assumption of bad faith towards the delete voters, including me. No one of the keep voters has provided a single RS in support of the claimed notability. No one has provided a proof of notability of the subject's book, except some statistics. It would be sufficient that one of the keep voters would had provided two or three of the reviews and articles you cited above to give substance to their opinions and to be convincing. If it was so obvious 500 copies of a book make a person notable and you want the notability based on the sole ground of the books diffusion in libraries, be bold and change the guideline. Cavarrone 19:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I can't find any reviews for the two books in JSTOR--now JSTOR isn't everything, but not a single mention? In fact, JSTOR doesn't have a single review on any of his work. I think two articles I found while searching for his name cite him, and JSTOR lists three articles and a review by him--but nothing on him. I'm also perfectly willing to change my mind, but I'd like to do so on the basis of some complete citations. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We have specialized notability guidelines because we agree that for some topics the General Notability Guidelines are unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, there are ((afd)) where contributors mistakenly or mischeiviously try to insist that we use the GNG or a different specialized notability guideline. I agree with those who have argued Gagnon has met the criteria of WP:PROF. Allowing an individual to have a standalone wikipedia article should be neither a reward or a punishment. That decision should be based on policy, which this article complies with. Geo Swan (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Passes WP:PROF based on book holdings, as discussed above. Apparently his views are controversial; all the more notability. Gagnon's book The Bible and Homosexual Practice has been called (by one writer not on his side) "the definitive exposition of the traditionalist's case" and Gagnon himself "the foremost traditionalist interpreter" on the topic. Another writer describes The Bible and Homosexual Practice as "one of the most cited" traditionalist works on the topic. Seems like a very clear "keep" to me. -- 202.124.75.16 (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now we're talking. That's useful, thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're welcome. There's a great deal of reliable in-depth coverage, but mostly in the form of books. -- 202.124.75.22 (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - On Gagnon's publishers, what makes you think that Abingdon Press is not a major religious press? They also publish authors like N. T. Wright, for example. Similarly, Fortress Press is the academic imprint of Augsburg Fortress, the official publishing house of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. -- 202.124.75.22 (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Controversial books which make them or their authors notable should not be dismissed out of hand, even if the author may have been a relatively unknown academic until the publication of the book, never mind how many libraries around the world subsequently list the book in their catalogues. Many academics shy away from a topic, if it could or might affect their academic standing or advancement. Give Gagnon his due. The talk page of David and Jonathan has an interesting discussion about him under Homo Romantic Hijacking. This quote from the discussion about him is also relevant here: As for Gagnon, well, he does have a B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, and is author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001; 520 pgs.), and which has received numerous peer reviews. http://www.robgagnon.net/RevPraise.htm. And co-authored (with Dan O. Via) Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003; 125 pgs.), as well as numerous other articles as well as many substantial exchanges with those on the opposing side. He is a member both of the Society of Biblical Literature and of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, and has published scholarly articles on biblical studies in Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Novum Testamentum, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Horizons in Biblical Theology, and The Christian Century. I do understand such a resume may not change one's opinion of his work, or the lack of esteem such a one may have for those who disagree with them (and who imagine only secular or religiously liberal publications and colleges are unbiased and worthy of esteem) but perhaps the title of scholar could be allowed for them in a secular article.Daniel1212 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC). I am inclined to agree with this and what Agricola44 says. Zananiri (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I may not like his views (or perhaps I may), but he has clearly done substantial work on what is currently a controversial subject. That makes him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a professor Gagnon is a fringe and reactionary character who fails PROF. But as an author popular with American Christian social conservatives who are working to limit homosexuality, Gagnon meets WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be greatly appreciated if people with access to independent offline sources could phrase the references and quotes in a manner that allows them to be used directly in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nascar Racer[edit]

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

This game has no evidence of being notable. A Google search turns up no reliable sources that establish notability, only one "this could be a good Christmas gift" listing in U.S. News & World Report, and that's it - no full reviews, no "this broke ground", nothing. Fails WP:GNG. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bushranger - one of the WP:RUNOFTHEMILL handheld games of the era. Ansh666 00:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. No prejudice against recreation if verification and reliable sources are produced later. Royal broil 01:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like another cookie-cutter handheld game. WP:COOKIE. Zappa O Mati 03:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - No product page, no information, the only way is that Wikipedia meets all of the information, and will not get lost in oblivion forever, and so one day, no one knows about or that liquid crystals could do things with them. I know that is not a big game, not even good, but a user may need to know before buying or using it.
- How many batteries need
- Type AA or AAA batteries
- It sounded good (will insert link to video)
- How many versions are
- The manufacturer that other items made
- Where are the batteries (not obvious, like a screw disarmament)
- Where to find the missing Manual
- Basic Manual
- All reviews, the we have to do ourselves, with the game in hand (I have it)
- Others

If the problem is the storage capacity wikipedia or lack of funds then it is another matter I think wikipedia relevance criteria are wrong, should be disposal all without discussions unless it is immoral, in a paper encyclopedia this would be correct, but not in wikipedia, there is enough space (or am I wrong?) --Luis46coco (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All those things you list as things to incude are things Wikipedia is not intended to incllude. Wikipedia is not a game guide, manual, how-to resource, or a source for reviews; in short, WP:NOTBLOG, which would be the place for the kind of things you want to add. Wikipedia covers things that are established to be notable through third-party reliable sources; while the notability standards are, IMHO, too tight, there must be sources to establish notability, period, and for this, there are none - we don't have an article just because somebody might find it useful. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 30 June 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. L Faraone 04:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor: Young Caesar[edit]

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

In an internet search I could find no new information about this film since the 2010 FilmoFilia article used as a ref MarnetteD | Talk 23:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Delete per WP:NFF. The alternative would be to merge the info into the Burr Steers article and create a redirect. MarnetteD | Talk 23:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand if other editors can find new info and update the article I have no objection to that. MarnetteD | Talk 23:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Incubate article or temporarily~~ merge and redirect to Burr Steers. The topic of this planned film is covered in multiple independent sources (ie: Collider Deadline Moviefone Killer Film and some others), but WP:NFF tells us that it may simply be TOO SOON for a separate article. Allow undeletion or recreation once filming has been confirmed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that all of your examples were three years old or more? As I said I have found nothing about the film that is more recent. I would be more in favor of a merge if there was any indication that Burrs or anyone for that matter was still working in some fashion on the project. MarnetteD | Talk 03:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would make sense that "incubation" is off the table. So stricken above. WP:NFF indicates a film topic not have its own article, but as we do have a topic which is discussed in independent sources, even if older sources, we do have something that can still be discussed in some manner within the director's article... even if never made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability guidelines for future films; no indication of production since three years ago. If we are to mention the development, I think it should go on the source material article. It looks like there is only the author's article, though, so we can have a single sentence there mentioning a brief plan to adapt a film. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the available coverage is more to do with Steers being hired by Exclusive Media Group to direct, and less about the Conn Iggulden novel series and, as his being hired to direct (whether he ever does so or not, he has cashed the check) is part of his career, I went ahead and added two sourced sentences over at Burr Steers#Career. As the proposed title Emperor: Young Caesar IS a searchable term that gives results in independent sources, I think that while it may be mentioned somewhere within the Conn Iggulden article, I think a redirect of a searchable term to the director's article makes more sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is up for debate that being attached to a project is a highlight worth noting. Directors get attached to a project all the time. For Hancock (film), for example, Mann, Mostow, and Muccino were attached to direct before Berg actually went through with it. I've seen the same revolving-door effect with other films and other directors. I can think of numerous non-projects by David Fincher, Ridley Scott, Zack Snyder, etc. Applies to screenwriters, too -- I had this at Alex Tse before I realized that his career had no specific traction. News coverage does not necessarily translate directly into encyclopedic coverage. The fact that there is no completed film greatly minimizes the importance of such detail. With a completed film, such development history becomes relevant. I think the source material serves as a better base for content because it can have multiple attempts in film adaptation, like Shantaram (novel)#Film adaptation. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that unrealized projects do not have an inherent notability. Something like Kubrick's projected film about Napoleon does qualify since he used the research he did in the filming of Barry Lyndon. I don't see that Speers has continued with any interest in Caesar or the Roman Empire. IMO the ~~likelihood~~ fact that it is unlikely of a reader typing in that full title in out search engine combined with the fact that IMDb does not have a page for this title means that I still lean toward 'delete'. Should the project ever get the green light the article can certainly be resurrected and Steers early involvement given a brief mention. MichaelQSchmidt's research effort in this are to be admired. Erik - you mention of all the directors attached to Hancock reminds me of how each new paperback edition of Dune published back in the 70's had "Soon to be a major film directed by X" with a different name each time on its back cover. MarnetteD | Talk 15:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I listened to what Eric proposed up above, which is why I also created an alternate target at Conn Iggulden#Emperor series film adaptation... a section which can be expanded if other adaptations of his works are contemplated and receive coverage. Whether this title is considered searchable enough to be worth redirecting or not, at least sourced information has been preserved to serve our readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF as there is no indication that this project is even still in development. As a second choice, redirect to Conn Iggulden#Emperor series film adaptation per Michael; this project might be made without Burr Steers, but if it were made without being based on Iggulden's books, then it would be a completely separate film. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 1 July 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 with no prejudice toward a future merge proposal to Sandi Patty, which can take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Edge of the Divine[edit]

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

Failure to meet WP:NALBUMS (PROD contested without reason) Uberaccount (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason given for how it fails. Sure it's just a stub, but it was just created today (not by me). Give it a little time at least. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I (as nom) disagree - the article is little more than a track listing and, in my opinion, does not establish notability. Uberaccount (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can find, it did win a Dove Award for Inspirational Album in 2011[2]. However, per WP:NALBUMS, "album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". Keep for now, but if it can't be expanded upon in due time, there's nothing wrong with it being redirected into the Sandi Patty article, since the Dove Award info is listed there as well. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found a few results on the Google news archive search, there's a Christianity Post review already cited here, a few other reviews I've found[3][4][5], This could be a good indepedent source for this article, I'm sure this is a notable enough album to be here. EditorE (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this is the title of both a book and album by Patty. We should include info on both the book and album in one article. EditorE (talk) 23:05, 26 June 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criteria G6, G7 and R3. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"German immigrants in the United States"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"German immigrants in the United States"

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

I used unnecessary "quotes"-I intended German immigrants in the United States DadaNeem (talk) 21:20, 24 June 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 June 24. Snotbot t • c » 21:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This should be speedily deleted as WP:CSD#G7 soon. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 23:56, 24 June 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. An RFC may be indeed a good starting point to solve the problem, especially since now we have Wikivoyage where this information is appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements for Zimbabwean citizens[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTGUIDE. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This article does not have any encyclopedic value. This is more of a "how to"/tourism guide this is not what wikipedia is about. JetBlast (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (WP:NOTTRAVEL). Ansh666 18:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Query Is the argument the same for the other 158 pages at Category:Visa requirements by nationality ? 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been some mass deletion discussion for these articles in August 2010 but all I can find is individual links such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa requirements for Russian citizens. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I could find: "compromise solution to move the visa-free sections to a separate article while keeping the link for this new supplemental article through a proper template (Template:See also & Template:Main) with an image and one sentence as it can bee seen all over Wikipedia." This, however, was for "visa-free sections in passport articles". Ansh666 19:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This line from the Russian example seems to indicate some kind of ANI discussion: "The result was keep. provisional keep pending m,ass nomination/discussion as discussed at ani Spartaz Humbug! 11:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)" 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, there was mention from User:Shadowjams of a AN/I discussion, but I couldn't find it. Ansh666 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#Visa_article_flood_of_AFD_nominations 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw I was mentioned here... I don't remember these discussions specifically (the linked is from 2010) and I don't actually comment in the linked discussion, but it's quite likely I was against these sorts of mass article creations at some point in the past. It just doesn't seem to be exactly that linked discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Visa_requirements_for_Russian_citizens where you participated, although you probably don't remember it. Sorry to bother you, if you were bothered. Ansh666 03:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe we should start the RfC proposed in the AN/I thread above. Ansh666 20:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC) unrelated side note, I see Xenophrenic and Tea Party! looks familiar.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. --Stormbay (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the russian AFD, and this discussion. If this were Visa_requirements_for_United_States_citizens then there would already be 10 '''Strong keep''' !votes by now. Wikipedia should not be discriminating the about the existence of articles based upon which nationality/country they are.Martin451 (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Visa_requirements_for_Northern_Cypriot_citizens leads to a centralised discussion here Martin451 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have voted the same on the US article, Russia, UK, whatever. I simply don't think this is encyclopedic. Ansh666 20:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now based on the previous discussions. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete None of these art remotely notable. Wikipedia is not a how to guide, and should not have articles that are how-to articles. Delete them all, burn with fire (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no references at all, it's hard to asses the notability of the article. Why does it exist? And the "(page still being constructed)" is just a joke. As to some comments above, please take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep until greater consensus can be reached on whether such articles ought to exist. I am in favor of keeping such articles, but they would still need to pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 1 July 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. Result also supported by the MOS discussion the nominator started, linked below. postdlf (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hetty King (disambiguation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only two legitimate entries; the wife of a Confederate general is utterly unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep meets guidelines for disambiguation pages. Three entries, all valid. Wife of general meets MOS:DABMENTION, which is theguideline we'd be looking for here, not WP:NOTABILITY. (If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included.) Boleyn (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The woman is mentioned exactly once in her husband's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is sufficient. If it's not suitable for disambiguation, it should not be mentioned even once. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I heartily disagree, and have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Clarification about "Items appearing within other articles". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as I observed above. Ambiguity on Wikipedia exists for this name, and must be disambiguated. This navigational page is both required and legitimate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:34, 28 June 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. Lack of independent secondary sources leads to a failure to meet the notability guidelines. Personal statements of how well-known he is unfortunately do not warrant an encylopedia article - significant independent coverage would. ~ mazca ^talk 13:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P. C. Thomas (professor)[edit]

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

Delete This article is a stub which has experienced no additions but vandalism. This insignificant and puny article is not notable and is fitting of criteria for deletion. 155blue (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P. C. Thomas may not be as well known as Oommen Chandy, K. Karunakaran, Mohanlal, or Mammootty in Kerala, but I can guarantee all engineering and medical students from Kerala in last 20+ years (and their family) will be knowing well about P. C. Thomas ~~ Anonymous User (with no voting rights @ 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.15.90.2 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Hindu [6] has a dedicated article written on this subject. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: better Google and Google News links ~~ Anonymous User (208.15.90.2 (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHe is quite well known in Kerala and meets WP:AnyBio Uncletomwood (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly this guy runs a successful business and is known to a segment of society, but that doesn't mean that he deserves a Wikipedia article. I see no independent, reliable secondary sources that actually analyze him. Abductive (reasoning) 06:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to being promotional. This article on a coaching expert amounts to an advertisement. The reference is promtion, and could not be considered independent third party coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject meets neither WP:BASIC nor WP:ANYBIO. Miniapolis 14:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Fails all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:57, 2 July 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination due to low participation. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iceolate (Front Line Assembly song)[edit]

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

No RS (YouTube and Discogs are self created sources) not notable. Tyros1972 Talk 06:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article not containing reliable sources is not a good reason for deletion. As this book mentions, the single was named "single of the week" in Melody Maker, so would have had the most prominent single review in that week's issue - coverage in reliable sources clearly exists. --Michig (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Need to dig out the album that's on too! Shame alot of the FLA album articles are in a poor state too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 20:51, 24 June 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. The original ed withdrew the article & there were no substantial contributions otherwise, I consider it a reasonable decision DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Templar's Secret[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about book written by author that has no article smileguy91^talk 13:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There being no article for the author is not relevant. It's normal for a book to have more coverage than its author: book reviews are much more common than features on authors. Dricherby (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite as an article about the author and then consider notability again. A notable author is one who writes notable books, and the reviews that make the books notable, also show notability for the author The author in this case has written several books, & one at least of them is more important than this one, based on the library holdings. Normally, if there is only a single article, it should be about the author, Certainly the importance of an author who has written a notable book and other things also is more notable than the single book; even where there is only one book, anyone who writes a successful book, is likely to write other books also and so the article always has the potential for expansion. An article about a book rarely has such potential. I reserve judgment on whether the author is notable until the article is written. It will, as always, depend on the reviews & other sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to C.M. Palov and redraft as an article about the author and her other books. I don't think the book itself is notable but there seems to be a few things about the author and as DGG points out, she has written other (arguably more well-known) books. Stalwart111 07:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, Not savalgeable in its current form. If a properly-sourced article about the author is ever created, this work can be mentioned there. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to note that I'm working on an article for the author and so far... there isn't actually anything out there to really verify notability enough for her to have an article. I'm finding brief, trivial mentions and the odd trade review, but not really anything that would show she passes WP:AUTHOR. Lists such as this one state she sells well, but the thing is that selling well and being popular doesn't always guarantee notability. She appears to have the same issue that I run into with a lot of niche authors in that they're known and even end up on bestselling lists, but they never actually gain a lot of coverage. (Such as a romance author landing on the NYT bestselling list for paperbacks on multiple occasions, but never actually gaining any in-depth reviews or articles about them.) I'm so far arguing against creating a page for the author on this basis. I'll mine a little longer, but so far she's just your typical non-notable niche author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recommend against an author article. There's really not enough out there to merit an article for the author. I've created a stub article in my userspace here and as you can see, there really isn't anything out there about her. Not enough for an article, in any case. There are a few trade reviews and one article by the Bangkok Post, but not really anything else. There just isn't enough to merit an article for the book or its author and I'd recommend against creating an author page, as that'd just end up being sent to AfD itself. I'll hold on to the author page in my userspace, but I'll just say that from experience if an author's series doesn't make a splash upon entry, it's usually unlikely that further releases will gain it either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:09, 25 June 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 You learn something new every day. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Meadows[edit]

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

Too soon. Fails WP:GNG at this time. Insufficient significant coverage from independent sources. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even these few sources count as reliable. There is a lot of coverage of him. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 15:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meadows is a first-round pick and a High School All American, are there are many sources (some of which I am adding as we speak!) containing information on him. If Clint Frazier is still an article, why shouldn't this be? Mpejkrm (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright, thank you. I'm still pretty new to this, have to get adjusted to all the WP pages and everything. I appreciate it. Mpejkrm (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too soon to decide on this guy.. If he signs i'd say merge to the minor league player page... if he doesn't then delete because I don't feel high school baseball players are notable. All the sources are from draft profiles which don't provide in-depth converge. Spanneraol (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as of now I created a bunch of articles on top draft choices before the draft happened, but I passed on creating this one because I didn't see nearly enough sources. Now, there are some sources, and it might be enough to get over GNG, but I'm not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NHSPHSATH. Subject received national honors as an All American, which indicates that he has received, as an individual, substantial and prolonged coverage that is neither routine nor trivial.--TM 13:28, 25 June 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. There's a large amount of coverage, but its quality as a source for an encyclopedic work is disputed and no real consensus has developed as to whether notability is really demonstrated. The dodgy writing style of much of the article does seem to give a bad impression, but there's ultimately no consensus that this article is best solved by deletion rather than improvement. ~ mazca ^talk 13:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mădălina Diana Ghenea[edit]

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)).

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

This individual is certainly somewhat "famous", but I'm not quite convinced that she's notable under our standards. Just look at the level of coverage here:

Directory entries or worse: [7], [8], [9], [10]

Fan bios: [11], [12]

Blog posts: [13]

Tabloid journalism: [14], [15], [16], [17]

If someone can present "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", great. If not, we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 22:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 22:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and cleanup). We can also find several sources in Romanian language: Mediafax, Adevarul, Revista Flacăra. I don't consider these (or ProTV) to be tabloid journalism; of course, these are in the Life/Entertainment sections of the newspapers, but where would you expect to be a story about a fashion model? However, we need to clean-up the article of non-reliable sources and remove any information that cannot be found in the remaining sources or other reliable sources. Razvan Socol (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're not a tabloid. Read the WP article. Regardless of the profession, the accomplishments are trivial 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, tabloid writing. The subject might be notable, but the article would need a complete rewrite (see WP:G11). If she is notable, it's probably best to delete the present article and wait for a serious encyclopedist to start a new one. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an article about a notable fashion model, information about her is most likely to be faound in the Entertainment section of the newspaper. Unreliable sources were deleted, parts of the article were modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zita Szeplaki (talk • contribs) 07:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources may be "tabloid journalism" but they meet GNG. 86.153.72.187 (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 17:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, the article is poorly sourced written concerning a non-notable actress. Finnegas (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs improvement in style, grammar, and general flow. However, the subject appears notable and has a career path which should add to her notability. She will never be written up in the science journals so some care has to be taken sorting through the available sources to keep the article factual. --Stormbay (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regardless of judgement calls regarding the sources, she certainly seems to be recognized in Romania, and through her relationship with Gerard Butler, has received some coverage outside Romania too. I find Stormbay's arguments compelling and a look at the Google News hits and general search results appears to support them. A rewrite and/or stubbing of the article seems appropriate though. The AFD for Dana Rogoz makes the point that being notable in Romania should be good enough for en.wikipedia. I was "leaning keep" at first, but in course of considering this and the sources (also searching for Madalina Ghenea without the "Diana"), I am voting "keep" Mabalu (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "notable in Romania should be good enough for en.wikipedia" argument is a straw man, since that's not what's being argued. Few people outside Romania have heard of, say, Ilie Cătărău or George Mârzescu; that doesn't mean they're not notable by our standards. Stormbay, Mabalu: where are the (quotable) sources? What "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" demonstrate this individual's purported notability? Vague appeals to "Google News hits and general search results" won't cut it. Neither will the "career path which should add to her notability" (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). If dating Gerard Butler is what makes her significant, then say that on his page - I note no mention of her there. We need usable sources if a convincing case for keeping is to be made. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not saying she's remotely close to being in the same league as politicians and bombers who helped trigger world wars. But she's clearly thought notable enough to have articles on at least three other non-English wikis - I was surprised by this too, and didn't notice that they had been AFD'd there. Yes, that simply means nobody has nominated them yet, but still, it surprised me. A lot of the sources on Google News are in languages I don't read or even know for sure what they are, and they do LOOK a bit tabloidy, but the sources solidly cover three years - 2011, 2012, 2013, and cover quite a lot of results - a scan through doesn't look like it's lots of copies of the same article rehashed in multiple papers. I am honestly not interested in the person, but being covered over a period of three years is hardly single-event notability. Translated, it may all be vapid stuff of no interest to superior intellects, but it is there. Mabalu (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Schirmer[edit]

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

Notability not established Peter Rehse (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs a LOT of work. But Schirmer passes WP:WPMA/N based on his Gracie World Submission Championship titles in 2003, '04 and '05 [18]. With some good secondary sourcing (which is out there), he should pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that tournament is sufficient to show notability. It suddenly became a world championship event when the Relson Gracie National Championship combined with the Arnold Sports Festival. See more at my comment below. Jakejr (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean about the IBJJF, but don't believe success in their tournements (which admittedly are more prestigous) is required to show notability. All you need to pass WP:WPMA/N as a martial artist is to be a "Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)." Since Arnold's combined with Gracie's tournament, it can't be considered an internal school tournament. Plus, any title with the Gracie name in BJJ is significant. That should be enough for a keep in my opinion. Luchuslu (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but not every Gracie or thing associated with a Gracie is notable. Several Gracies have had articles deleted via AfD.Mdtemp (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of individual Gracies has nothing to do with this. Winning a BJJ tournament with the Gracie name attached to it three consecutive years is at the very least significant, which is all WP:WPMA/N requires for individual notability. Luchuslu (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete My search found Schirmer is not mentioned at the IBJJF web site for any event. The IBJJF was already holding true world championship events by the late 1990s so success at the Arnold-Gracie event does not meet WP:MANOTE. He did appear once at the ADCC (2000) where he was choked out in the first round of his first match. I don't believe that meets WP:MANOTE either. Induction into martial arts halls of fame is also not sufficient to show notability. Jakejr (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I rarely comment on an MMA fighter/teacher, but I am familiar with MR Schrimer as I have a close friend who has studied under him. I have to agree Jakejr on his MMA notability.. I am also troubled by his right to hold the title "Master". I am going to assume its for TKD, although I can't find any mention of it.I am troubled when someone gains a title in one art (e.g. gransmaster/master) and uses it to teach another. Its a pet peeve of mine.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't quite meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep limited competition notability [19] but did have some nontrivial successes, and continues to garner minor attention [20], [21], [22]. JJL (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't meet WP:MANOTE and lacks the sources to meet WP:GNG. The articles mentioned by JJL are from local papers and websites of unknown reliability and independence. They show he runs a martial arts school but that's not sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:13, 30 June 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 divided. For the embassies in countries where there is a corresponding "relations" article, the consensus here is to merge, this is the result for Tel Aviv (Israel), Paris (France), and Rome (Italy).

It is less clear what to do with the other ones, these are Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), Canberra (Australia), and La Paz (Bolivia). Pburka suggested renaming, I am declining that because if the article is about the embassy, then the title should reflect that. As an AFD closer I am not going to provide the service of writing up a full "relations" article so that we can justify a renaming. There is not a consensus to delete these, so I cannot call that. I will make an editorial judgement here on Embassy of Colombia, Canberra which will be merged to Foreign relations of Australia#Americas since the embassy is already covered in that article.

For the Abu Dhabi and La Paz articles I cannot offer a good solution at the moment, and will call those no consensus for the time being that they can be handled through editorial processes. (I suspect that a Bolivia-Colombia relations article could be easily justified as they are both South American counties in relatively close proximity, but that a Colombia-UAE article would be harder to justify.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Abu Dhabi[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Simply an address listing, also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is with all these embassy pages? Anyways, merge and/or redirect to the appropriate pages (bilateral relations, list of diplo missions, whatever). Ansh666 21:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete. Maybe merge as suggested above, maybe listify, but it's good content. -- Y not? 14:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you are supporting keep you need to demonstrate how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's supporting basically keeping the content, but not necessarily in this specific form. Ansh666 00:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to appropriate foreign relations articles. If foreign relations article doesn't exist, rename the embassy article to Colombia—XXX relations. Pburka (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange Place, New Orleans[edit]

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

Street does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Only reference in article is a link to an image on Flickr, which does not satisfy WP:RS. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear special. Dough 48 72 00:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very historic street. A huge amount has been written about this alley [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] (it was called "Exchange Alley" and "Exchange Passage" before the late "Place" affectation). Before the American Civil War, it was "by far the most popular spot in the city". It was one of the centers of New Orleans slave trade [31]. And according to the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald lived on this street. [32]. Surprising that such a central French Quarter street would even be considered for AfD. It seems by the nom's statement that they didn't follow WP:BEFORE and decided this AfD simply by the article's current lack of sources. --Oakshade (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I would have never found all those great sources provided by Oakshade. Let's add info instead of delete. Looks like notability is there. Tinton5 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources found rocket this across the verifiability and notability thresholds. Kudos to Oakshade and here's hoping a motivated editor uses these sources to improve or expand this article. - Dravecky (talk) 02:54, 30 June 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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Onverse[edit]

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

Yet another virtual world with questionable sources consisting entirely of the product website and forum posts. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improve instead of delete. I'm not sure why you're being so quick to nominate virtual world articles for deletion instead of opting to improve them. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 15:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've already noticed six of the twelve sources to be from locations other than the product website and forum. Your argument has collapsed on itself. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no in-depth independent coverage as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:11, 17 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple independent in-depth secondary sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The sources in the article are mostly directly primary (including press release). [33] (uses their engine, so hardly independent) and [34] are also both interviews (primary). Neither is a WP:VG/RS. [35] comes closest to actual third-party coverage and is probably a decent source (even though the reporter is basically quoting and paraphrasing the CEO). I can't any more sources in news, books or vg sources. There aren't enough references or reviews available to reliably source and thus actually improve the content with real world significance or reception (WP:WAF). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:50, 28 June 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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mars (video game)[edit]

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

Another article about an online virtual environment, except it looks almost like an advert in addition to questionable sources. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improve instead of delete. I'm not sure why you're being so quick to nominate virtual world articles for deletion instead of opting to improve them. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 15:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero evidence of independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:11, 17 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any reliable, independent sources. The "game" has been in beta for three and a half years and there's no proper release date. Tigerboy1966 21:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, PlayStation Home has been in beta since December 2008. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 22:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Independent coverage is out there and not that hard to find:

-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:49, 28 June 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. This is a clear consensus that this article has a number of quality issues. There seems to be a weak consensus that these issues should be fixed via editing rather than deletion. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hookup culture[edit]

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

While the topic might be suitable/notable for an article, the article is written as a blatant personal POV essay, arguing that casual sex is a danger to American society, and supported by selectively quoting random figures from scholarship and the public debate. It should be redirected to Adolescent sexuality in the United States - from which it seems to be a POV fork. I do not consider the article salvageable as all of the material has clearly been selected and presented from a biased angle. It would require being written from scratch. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also see Talk:Hookup culture, where discussion of the state of the article has taken place. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I hope that those who vote keep based on notability, while realizing the blatant POV problem of the article, will help clean it up after the AfD ends if it should end with a keep. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the nominator herself belives that the topic is suitable for an article, I would suggest that she work to improve the article, which is substantial, rather than delete it. I would also oppose moving it to Adolescent sexuality in the United States as much of this article is written about college students, not adolescents, and even includes a section on the wider society and non-students as well. They are related, to be sure, but not close enough to be merged. --Illuminato (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article that you have written is almost entirely based on SYNTH and Original Research, and it is thoroguhly POV throughout. There really is nothing salvageable that I can see. If we need an article on this topic the material you have written needs to be deleted so that a neutral and non-SYNTH article can be written in its place. We have plenty of precent for deleting or stubbing articles as blatantly POV as this through the AfD process.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also this paragraph from the Review of General Psychology (cited in the article), showing its notability: "The past decade has witnessed an explosion in interest in the topic of hookups, both scientifically and in the popular media. Research on hookups is not seated within a singular disciplinary sphere; it sits at the crossroads of theoretical and empirical ideas drawn from a diverse range of fields, including psychology, anthropology, sociology, biology, medicine, and public health." --Illuminato (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enought reliable sources are cited for this to be a notable topic. It's separate from adolescent sexuality which normally refers specifically to the teenage years. Issues about bias can be dealt with by editing and aren't grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes redirection and this done by normal editing, not deletion. The content seems quite recentist and parochial but is well sourced and seems to be quite a notable topic. Warden (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage among particularly academic scholarly sources in books and academic journal articles. — Cirt (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of it. NPOV issues from start to finish; not just the moral stance taken on sexuality but also the focus on a rather thin slice of society - that is, students in the USA. Notability is not the only reason that articles get deleted or redirected; I don't doubt that there are independent sources which discuss this topic, but instead of a polemic, policy requires that a content should fairly reflect what the most reliable sources say. If somebody is going to write an article that complies with policy, and if for some reason they have to write it at this title rather than at Adolescent sexuality in the United States, the most practical (and lowest-risk) way to get there is to delete the current mess and start again. The article as it stands is a net negative. If we don't get rid of it, well, it's difficult to predict the future, but considering past experience with POV forks I think it's likely that a few months down the line we'll still have an article at this title, and it will still pass GNG, and it'll still fail NPOV. bobrayner (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete numerous sources are original research, a coatrack it an attempt to split a separate meaning from casual sex for an american slang term. - Altenmann >t 15:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article is about hookup culture, not hookups themselves, which is more than just a slang term and thus deserving of an article apart from casual sex. --Illuminato (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article describes the findings from a body of literature that believes there is such a thing as a 'hook-up culture' and which makes certain normative assertions about it. Imho, those who propose delete have issues with the literature the article describes, not the page itself. The page is poor quality right now and needs to be improved. The page could be improved by including the writings of those who take issue with advocates for the concept of 'hook-up culture'. It would be helpful if the page noted that discussion of this phenomenon is limited to a few academic disciplines in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Golub (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please note that the following text is included in the "Rise of hookup culture" section: ""The past decade has witnessed an explosion in interest in the topic of hookups, both scientifically and in the popular media. Research on hookups is not seated within a singular disciplinary sphere; it sits at the crossroads of theoretical and empirical ideas drawn from a diverse range of fields, including psychology, anthropology, sociology, biology, medicine, and public health.""

Delete. I came here expecting to vote speedy keep, but this article is a one-sided tract. Gamaliel (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We share the general sentiment of Maunus and Gamaliel but am loathe to recommend deletion for such a well-organized body of work. Perhaps it would be possible to move the page to "Criticism of hookup culture" or something along those lines. (Is the term "hookup culture" itself used mostly by authors who are critical of said culture? How does this affect our decision?) groupuscule (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An elegant solution which would both preserve the work that went into this article and prevent the gruntwork of carving it into an NPOV article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it represents a particular culture , and not a global view, simply say so in the lede. If we never covered everything but what was in common to all of mankind, we wouldn't be an encyclopedia. If the wordingis too much of OR, modify it. It is certainly real enough and there are certainly sources. I think there are NPOV uses of the term-- cf this book from OUP and this article and this one. here's an interesting pair of articles from Atlantic monthly in 2010 and 2012. Somehow, I doubt this is one of the topics where there is information to write an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, please look at the actual article. I am not arguing to delete based on lack of notability but on the state of the article itself. Tes there is a large literature and npov uses of the term. Just not in this article. I do not consider it salvageable, and I don't think anyone is going to even try. So if the article is kept as is we are going to have a POV diatribe against casual sex in WP article space for god knows how long. Delete it but let it be recreated by someone who is able and willing to write a balanced article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Terribly biased, but NPOV cleanup is not addressed by deletion. Notable subject, as shown by plenty of references and sources. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon for unsalvageable POV articles to be deleted even though the topic is notable yes - deletion with no prejudice for recreation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "unsalvageable POV". Even if this means a complete rewrite, this still means you can fix by editing, not deletion. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope someone will, too -I personally have not enough knowledge on the topic to be of serious help. We have no deadline. I understand your concerns, but if you have concerns about the article, why didn't you fix the POV yourself, instead of asking for deletion? --Cyclopia ^talk 16:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already spent more time than I should working with a reluctant collaborator user:illuminato to get the article closer to being in line with our core policies. It has improved a little, but not nearly enough. If the article is deleted and rewritten from scratch by someone with an interest in NPOV that will save probably around a 50 hours of time I would guess. I can use my wikipedia time better than by cleaning up other people's messes. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, "cleaning up other people's messes" is kind of the whole point of having a wiki. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what wikipedia is for you then you should be happy at the chance of cleaning up this particular article - and I woudl have expected you to already be working at it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, I am not knowledgeable enough on this topic to clean this particular mess. But this doesn't change the fact that mess-cleaners and improvers we are. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing your vote to delete would be a good start on cleaning up this one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Deletion is not cleanup, it never is. There is a huge amount of sources and material, in the article, that to me look like can be used -academic research etc. All it needs is someone who knows the topic that can help the POV concerns. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article most likely will require a major POV overhaul but there is enough source material that it is relevant. J.Rly (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The (relevant) sources cited are clearly discussing a subculture largely confined to college students in the US - the subject matter can (and should) be covered within the broader context of articles such as Adolescent sexuality in the United States. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article focuses too heavily on the US and obviously isn't neutral. However I think almost all of the article should be kept and used in other articles like Adolescent sexuality in the United States and Casual sex. Rubersan the Red (talk) 07:23, 4 July 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 Dominie, which looks like it's going to survive AfD itself. -- Y not? 20:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominee[edit]

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

Belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia (dominee is actually the Dutch word for minister, and apparently the Afrikaans word as well). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rather redirect this word to Dominie - currently a stub which also mentions the word. Martinvl (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)~~ Martinvl (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Dominie, which seems to describe the same term, per Martinvl. -- 202.124.89.4 (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Martinvl (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this belongs in Wiktionary, as does the similar word dominie, which also has a Wikipedia article of its own. I created the dominee article because it is a distinct word from dominie (each have their own separate entries in the OED), without realising that Wiktionary is the better place for both. Can the dominie article also be deleted as a result of this discussion, as exactly the same logic applies, or do we have to start a new, identical, discussion for that? Up and in (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may use ((Db-g7)) as the author of this article. — Lfdder (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my redirect to Dominie !vote, which was struck out above. My !vote for Dominie is keep, if this AfD is going to be extended to that article. Dominie is not just a word, it's a notable social role in Dutch Reformed and Scottish communities, which has lots of book references (see e.g. James D. Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America: A History of a Conservative Subculture). Db-g7 does not apply to Dominie, which has had more than a dozen contributors. -- 202.124.89.33 (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As dominie and dominee are English words with different meanings, each with independent entries in the OED and other dictionaries, it would be inaccurate and misleading to redirect dominee to dominie. Up and in (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both dominie and dominee refer to the same concept: Dutch Reformed pastors. "Dominie" also has a wider scope. The article dominie is about the concept, and dominee should redirect to it. Your OED argument applies only to wiktionary (where there should indeed be two entries). -- 202.124.73.2 (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a proposal that the article Pastor be merged into the article Minister (Christianity). A few extra words in the section Minister (Christianity)#Dominie, Dom, Don will probably include everything of value in the article Dominee. The few entries in Wikipedia that use the word dominee can easily be linked to Minister (Christianity) instead. Martinvl (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's well outside the topic of this AfD debate. And what's with striking out other people's !votes? -- 202.124.75.6 (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors interested in this discussion may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominie. Cnilep (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TRanswikify to dictionary then redirect to Minister (Christianity)#Dominie, Dom, Don, or do I merely need to say Minister (Christianity). Martinvl's proposals would be an appropriate prelude to deletion, but a redirect will be simpler. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 30 June 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. Secret ^account 15:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chanhassen Red Birds[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur baseball team. Wizardman 19:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- One that doesn't even bother claiming notability, no league to speak of etc.... gone Secret ^account 15:43, 28 June 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R204DESIGN[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was resurrected from a 'soft' post-AfD deletion in January, but hasn't been subsequently improved. I can't find any evidence of notability and I don't think the awards listed are particularly important. I found one of the listed 'Publications' and it turned out not to be about R204DESIGN, in fact ascribing one of R204DESIGN's alleged projects to another designer. On that basis I'm not sure I can trust anything in the article! This company has been formed and active during the internet age, therefore one would expect to find multiple examples of coverage about their achievements if they were notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. The achievements listed in the article do not add up to much, and the references are not to Reliable Sources. My search of Google News Archive found nothing to suggest notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage found in non-primary reliable sources, does not meet notability requirements as defined by WP:GNG; support deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:54, 25 June 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination due to low participation. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chelo (American singer)[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 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 June 10. Snotbot t • c » 19:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artist may have only released one album so far, but it ranked on the Billboard Latin charts. He also received a a Billboard Latin Music nomination and won a Premios Juventud. Therefore, he meets the crtieria for WP:MUSICBIO. Erick (talk) 17:45, 12 June 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) 16:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Nominator has provided an insufficient rationale. The subject easily meets WP:GNG (and WP:MUSICBIO) with coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. I've added just a sample of the many available sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:36, 28 June 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 Rogue Traders (TV series). (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Penteado[edit]

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

TV presenter of very questionable notability; most of the article in its current state strikes me as a BLP1E violation. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rogue Traders (TV series) All of the information is there, but with actual sourcing, and besides letting us know he resigned to go to school, everything else in the show article duplicates this article. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's clearly notable for more than just his arrest, and it would not be appropriate to merge him into the Rogue Traders article, where he only worked for a few years. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to merge in light of the evidence and (as it turns out) lack of notability (thank you Google). I've gone ahead and merged what I can as a major contributor to Dan Penteado and offer no opposition to Dan Penteado becoming a redirect now. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot redirect during an open AfD, as the template clearly entails. - Wylie pedia 17:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I was working under the assumption of WP:Snow since i created about half of that article and there is now no one arguing for a keep ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 18:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD process lasts around a week, minimum. — Wylie pedia 07:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RT series. The first half of the article is about his role in the series and what the series was about; the second half is about his arrest, also mentioned at the series article. — Wylie pedia 10:01, 26 June 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. L Faraone 04:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jess & Jim's Steakhouse[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement, and violates both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia. Fails WP:ORG. No notability whatsoever. scope_creep 19:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, Notability is referenced in the article by the numerous awards from well known publications such as Playboy, USA Today, Esquire, etc BlueGold73 (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gossip) @ 21:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 21:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a news and book search and was frankly surprised to find no newspaper or significant book mentions for a restaurant reportedly in existence since 1938. The fact that it exists, even for 75 years, does not in and of itself make a restaurant notable. Not every restaurant is necessarily notable in terms of its encyclopedic value, however excellent its food or service. I must agree with nom that this article fails WP:ORG and WP:NOTE. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the news and magazine articles cited in the article, a quick search even reveals more than one appearance in New York Times articles, so there are definitely plenty of mentions outside of the Kansas City area, including the New York Times, Playboy, Esquire, and Travel + Leisure. How does that fail WP:ORG and WP:NOTE? BlueGold73 (talk) 05:13, 16 June 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) 15:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manifestly notable. Historic. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:41, 24 June 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zamil Industrial[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ORG. 10 year old organization. scope_creep 20:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (parlez) @ 21:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (yak) @ 21:08, 10 June 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) 15:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News Archive search shows many articles on the company. This for example, is significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:41, 24 June 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrate the Century[edit]

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

This stamp issue is not notable in itself, however notable the subjects depicted may be. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well! Going by that you perhaps you can also look at the following articles (under deletion policy) the first one was started by me, all three will fall in the same perview as the CTC issue. Nature of America, Canada Post millennium stamps, Millennium stamp. --PremKudva^Talk 05:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to this is to evidence significant coverage in reliable third party sources. If you can change the articles to include that evidence then they could be notable. Long running series can be good philatelic articles but more commonly that relates to long definitive series which have been extensively studied than to repeating commemorative series produced purely for collectors where there is little real scope for philatelic study. (IMHO). Philafrenzy (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no argument here, especially the "not a stamp catalogue" point. So that being the case you will not find many notable references except those that have already been provided. In fact some of the references became dead and I had to search new ones to substitute them. This article was started by anon in 2005 and I had made contributed only since 2008, and the Nature series was started by me in 2008. I also agree on the point that most commemorative issues these days are purely money making series by the various postal admins.--PremKudva^Talk 11:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is coverage for the issue but lacks subsequent coverage to establish that there is lasting impact. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Does not deviate from notability guideline, does not meet criteria for speedy deletion, also does not meet Reasons for deletion in the Deletion policy. To early to speak about lack of lasting impact. --PremKudva^Talk 06:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The sourcing is entirely to catalogs so how are any of the criteria for notability met; this is not speedy deletion so that this fails speedy deletion criteria is irrelevant, deletion policy does not list all the reasons ("[r]easons for deletion include, but are not limited to"); the stamps have been out for over a decade so there has been plenty of time to determine lasting impact. -- Whpq (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response - The sourcing is not from catalogues but from the online database of the National Postal Museum, Arago, a Smithsonian Institution museum.--PremKudva^Talk 03:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - See [36]. The database is of every stamp ever issued by the US. In other words, it is a catalog. -- Whpq (talk) 10:04, 14 June 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) 15:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:39, 24 June 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. A merge discussion may take place at the appropriate talk page if necessary. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kokuhaku (album)[edit]

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

Not notable. No RS. Tyros1972 Talk 12:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. It should be merged into the article of the artist (chatmonchu) as per WP:NALBUMS. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 13:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am still not certain of where to draw the line for album notability, but here are some facts: 1) This album did peak at number 2 on the Oricon album chart ([37]) and is the band's highest charting album so far (along with Seimeiryoku); 2) it was certified as a gold album ([38]); 3) there are quite a number of seemingly independent and significant RS on the album (with both interviews: [39], [40], [41], [42]; and reviews: [43], [44], [45], etc.). I am not that familiar with the music press, so I cannot judge all of these, but there does seem to be considerable coverage. Michitaro (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1. It was certified gold and peaked at number 2, 2. it has received coverage in reliable sources, in particular, the Excite.co.jp interview. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since I don't see any discussion arguing against the RS and information I found, I will judge the sources sufficient to satisfy notability. Michitaro (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Michitaro's sources and informations. Cavarrone 06:52, 30 June 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Also feel free to have a merge discussion on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Television[edit]

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

This page has multiple issues and no sources, and this has been true for years. Rebecca Television is not a TV station, but appears to be one guy's blog. It is not an entity that appears to have any more reason for notability than hundreds of thousands of blogs. I came upon it because it was being used as a source for defamatory content re Mazher Mahmood, and I could find no basis to judge Rebecca Television to be a reliable source. If it is a TV company, then we would expect to see its programs, where they were broadcast etc. In any event, the unresolved multiple issues since 2010 should also deal with it. Bluehotel (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge the article into Freemasonry#Political criticism. The blog is notable because it revealed connections between Freemasonry and child abuse; however, it isn't enough to keep. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 17:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 10 June 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) 16:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of football clubs in Scotland. Feel free to target this redirect to a section, where appropriate. The "misc. clubs" section's notability can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) czar · · 16:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clydebank Rovers F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable football club with no independent sources provided nor any to be found. Minor local coverage only. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of football clubs in Scotland, no evidence of independent notability but possible search term. GiantSnowman 08:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd almost concur except that the team belongs to the category "Miscellaneous clubs at the amateur level", a list that is populated (I daresay, by a quick sampling) entirely by articles that have no business on Wikipedia for the same reason as this article. I'd say that a giant cleanup is in order to address the tendency of every Sunday afternoon pub team to try to create an article about themselves. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per GiantSnowman. No evidence of notability. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:21, 26 June 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 Speedily deleted as vandalism by User:Starblind. Müdigkeit (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul's bench[edit]

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

Either a hoax or not notable. Müdigkeit (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Ok, now it is clear, its a hoax. The author tried to fit the article in that what he found as source...--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This is very a obvious inside joke between a few friends and completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. It is pure vandalism with absolutely no encyclopedic value whatsoever. - Mr X 15:49, 24 June 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 Deleted. Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. No need to let this supremely obvious AfD run for 7 days, though the nominator gets a nod for going by the book instead of trying to shoehorn a CSD criterion to fit this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How the Monkey got his Long Arms[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOR. Müdigkeit (talk) 15:09, 24 June 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 - withdrawn by nominator, no non-keep !votes. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 00:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schuylar Oordt[edit]

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

Unsourced page of an NFL player who never played in an NFL game. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Luchuslu (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - Found new sources with the help of Paul McDonald. Luchuslu (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in just a matter of moments, I found multiple reliable articles outlining the notability of the individual. Clearly passes WP:GNG from press generated by his college football days alone. It does not appear that the individual has yet played professionally in a regular season or post season game, so WP:NSPORTS is not cleared, but WP:GNG is the show-stopper. I agree that the sources should be added to the article, but that is an editing issue and not a deletion issue. I encourage the nominator to take the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the search I did just before nominating Oordt, I found no significant coverage that would warrant him passing WP:GNG. The vast majority were primary sources, his facebook and twitter accounts, and a blog post. If you'd like to discuss Wiki policies with me, I'd be more than happy to do so on our talk pages. But having a pissing contest on AfDs is not appropriate. Luchuslu (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try clicking on the "news" link above. It's really helpful--there are no twitter accounts, no facebook pages, and (almost) all bona fide news sources. As I wrote before, subject clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you mean. I'll tag the article and withdraw the nomination, maybe try to find some time to work on it. Thanks for your patience.

Keep. A college football player who receives significant coverage in mainstream, independent media sources satisfies WP:GNG even if he never plays in the NFL. This one is a closer call than some, because Oordt played at the FCS level. But, as noted by Paul M., above, Oordt appears to have received some significant coverage, i.e., more than passing references in game coverage. Examples of such coverage include articles from the following sources: Des Moines Register, Burlington Hawke Eye, KWWL, KCRG, The Gazette, Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, Fox News, WUSA 9, The Northern Iowan, KTVO, Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier, Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier. Cbl62 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 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 -- Y not? 14:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Chan Yuk-cheung[edit]

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

WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS . A POV fork of Senkaku Islands dispute. Although I personally found this interesting, and would prefer sources, inline citation and NPOV fixing and retaining (arguably merge and redirect to that article). Widefox; talk 08:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify BIO1E / NEWS reasoning - similar to (BLP1E) Zhan Qixiong: this is one event Senkaku Islands dispute#Events in the prolonged dispute. If the event itself is significant we should have an article on it (or arguably him there) rather than the person. The lack of inline citations and independent sources (((Request quote)) for WP:NONENG would be helpful too) in the article make this currently hard to evaluate / weigh up the individuals notability outside of the event (it appears to be a translation of the Chinese wiki article). "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event" - may be appropriate in the context of the Senkaku Islands dispute - there's currently no mention of him/this event in Senkaku Islands dispute#Events. The central issue seems to be NPOV / POV forks similar to Zhan Qixiong (by the same topic banned editor) - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhan Qixiong and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incidents of Endowing and Forfeiting the Titles of Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama. Widefox; talk 02:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: According to WP:BIO1E, 'If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.' The other reason is that the article Senkaku Islands dispute is not 'one event', but numorous events. David Chan is very famous for his role in the Diaoyu Islands protecting movement, not only for his own actions and death, but also for his influence in the movement. As this article exist in both Japanese and Chinese wikipedia, I don't think it can not exist in en wiki.Sgsg (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified my reasoning above. Do you have sources for his notability outside his death (event)? Could it be that Baodiao movement or Action Committee for Defending the Diaoyu Islands are the right places rather than Senkaku Islands dispute? Can you translate per request quote above? It is possible to not exist in en.wiki despite zh.wiki per Zhan Qixiong. Widefox; talk 03:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: Mr. Chan is notable for more than one event. He was a candidate in the 1991 Hong Kong Legislative Council election, for the Hong Kong Island West Constituency. He got 29,413 votes and did not get a seat. [46] In the 1995 Hong Kong Legislative Council election, Mr. Chan got 10,514 votes in the Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services functional constituency. --Mewaqua (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That clearly is short of notability in itself - being non-elected fails WP:POLITICIAN. Even if he had been elected, per WP:POLITICIAN "does not guarantee notability". I consider this is more than WP:NOT#NEWS, he is more notable himself than Zhan Qixiong, but just like Zhan Qixiong, its the event rather than a bio, so per Zhan Qixiong -> 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident its the event. Sources like [47] [48] [49] where he is only described with the event (as an activist). Widefox; talk 15:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Mr. Chan was famous and he was the first Chinese people sacrificed in Diaoyu Islands dispute. Also Chinese and Japanese version articles (both language reader stances are mostly opposite each other!) has been existing for a long time without dispute, there is no need to suggest deleting the English article. Ricky@36 (talk) 23:43, 16 June 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, BusterD (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nomination. This fails politician and does indeed to be a fork from the main article. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Senkaku Islands dispute#Incidents at or near the islands. No need for the man to have his own article when the event and his accidental death (seriously, it had nothing to do with the Japanese!) can be covered in more depth in another article. Ansh666 00:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - The event on September 26, 1996 is highly significant because it was the first time the protest that took the Chinese activists directly to the disputed islands; Chan's role is certainly a large one because he lost his life in that event, and tens of thousands of people mourned his death in Hong Kong (Source from Chicago Tribune). STSC (talk) 19:23, 2 July 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. A little time between nominations would be wise here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediocracy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article practically lacks reliable sources. Following are my analysis:

alexa on it's own doesn't make article noteworthy, but it's fine as a source for the alexa rank in the infobox
the wikipediocracy mission statement is a primary source
dailydot cannot be described as a reliable source at all.
the talking writing article only mentions wikipediocracy in a small paragraph.
the salon article states he was actually approached by wikipediocracy, which can imply some conflict of interest
new zeeland listener only refers to wikipediocracy in reference to a "one member"
the twitter feed is not a secondary source
netprofet doesn't refer to wikipediocracy
the telegraph doesn't refer to wikipediocracy
the register doesn't refer to wikipediocracy
the blog is a primary source

I've tried to find more primary sources using google but haven't been able to find any (only finding blog posts). Searching for wikipediocracy under google news gives no results at all.

I must conclude that wikipediocracy lacks significant coverage and should be deleted. _→AzaToth 14:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. We recently kept this article after extensive discussion. No useful purpose is served by reopening this divisive issue so soon. (See discussion on my talkpage for discussion of possible COI issues relevant to my !vote.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the previous discussions into consideration, but as there has been no effort of trying to produce any better references for the article, I feel there is no probability that any new relevant sources will be added. _→AzaToth 14:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and a fresh trout for the nominator. We just had several discussions like this. Recent consensus is that the article belongs and that is very unlikely to have changed in such a short period of time. - Mr X 14:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Although I agree with the nom's points this should be closed on proceedural grounds - the last relisted AFD was only closed on 3 June 2013. If you want to challenge the keep decision go to DRV. Echoing MrX, although consensus can change I don't see anything in the last 20 days that would make it so. The community has already decided to keep this article twice (or technically 4 times) within the last month--Cailil ^talk 15:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, trout nominator for wasting everybody's time here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note: I did not participate in the previous AfDs. I'd like an opportunity to provide my analysis of the article's notability. First, I tried to find third-party reliable sources about this article's topic. I cound not find a single source. Second, I took a look at the sources used in the article. Obviously, we can ignore primary sources such as Alexa and Twitter in determining notability. So, looking at the remaining sources, we have:

1 - Daily Dot - Wikipedia says its staffers are not vandalizing Wikipedia I'm not sure Daily Dot qualifies as a reliable source. So I'll defer this one until later.

2 - Talking Writing - What Should We Do About Wikipedia? I'm not familiar with source, but the About page claims it was founded by "Martha Nichols, a professional writer, editor, and journalist who teaches magazine writing at Harvard University" so it's probably OK.

3 - Salon - Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia This source is fine.

4 - Wikipedia and the scourge of “revenge editors” I'm not familiar with this source but the reference article doesn't seem to mention Wikipediocracy.

5 - Daily Dot - Wikipedia pot article loses bongs, gets OK'd in Russia Another Daily Dot article. See above.

6 - Daily Dot - Wikipedia's odd relationship with the Kazakh dictatorship Another Daily Dot article. See above.

7 - Net Prophet - Critics question neutrality of Kazakh Wikipedia I'm not familiar with this source but the reference article doesn't seem to mention Wikipediocracy.

8 - Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales restricts discussion of Tony Blair friendship This source is find, but it doesn't seem to mention Wikipediocracy.

9 - Daily Dot - Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales breaks silence on resurgence of influence-peddling scandal Another Daily Dot article. See above.

10 - The Register - Wales: Let's ban Gibraltar-crazy Wikipedians for 5 years I'm not sure if The Register qualifies as a reliable source as I know a lot of editors who object to its use. But that issue may be moot as this article doesn't seem to mention Wikipediocracy.

So far, we only have a single bona-fide third-party reliable source about this topic (Salon). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on procedural grounds. Failing that, keep as passing WP:GNG largely on the basis of the Salon article, though I see no reason why the Daily Dot should not be considered a WP:RS reliable source for this purpose. See, Forbes article The Daily Dot Is A Local Newspaper For The Social Web. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, per above. Also "The Daily Dot"'s status as a reliable source was already discussed in previous discussions, and so it is at best sloppy to ignore previous discussions without mentioning new information or pointing out errors in previous discussions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The last one just closed 3 weeks ago, another nomination so soon, re-hashing the same points attempted in that AfD, is extremely ill-informed and lacking in common sense. In that AfD, Salon and the Daily Dot were determined to be sufficient for the sourcing requirements of a Wikipedia article. We're not going to re-open that discussion again; consensus was reached 3 weeks ago, and editors don't get to re-hammer their opinions day after day after day on matters considered settled. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - exact same args as previous nom. Too soon since last AfD. Plenty of WP:RS available - Alison ^❤ 18:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per consensus from the previous discussions. Optimom (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I voted delete in the last AfDs. The consensus was keep at the end of them, and it wasn't even that long ago. There is simply no way this should've been opened again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 24 June 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bay horse[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Looks mildly promotional. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 13:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominated for speedy deletion under A7 by User:WilliamJE. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a building, not a company, and the article is too short to be promotional (as there's no evidence of conflict of interest), so I don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion. I agree that it fails WP:GNG; the pub (or one with this name) existed in the 1820s and probably earlier but appears to be unremarkable. It isn't a listed building according to the English Heritage website. Peter James (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. WP is not a directory. (WP is not the YP.) There are millions of business establishments in the world. The same article could be written about any of them. For instance Happys Donut Tree Too is a doughnut shop in Napa, California.cite from well-respected source. Find something notable about The Bay Horse from a secondary source and then think about an article on it. -BayShrimp (talk) 16:29, 24 June 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 (should be redirect to Duke of Manchester, but there's an issue with that too).. There's no consensus either way to Keep or Delete the article, the discussion is fairly evenly balanced, although the stronger set of arguments probably falls on the Delete side. There are too many people insisting because he inherited a title he is notable, but there is sufficient doubt regarding whether he has inherited a title (and even if he did there is a question about inheriting notability. The title no longer confers legislative responsibilities because of the Lords reforms; he's not a member of the House of Lords and plays no role in the UK legislative process, all but extinguishing any notability he may once have had pre Lords reform). He no longer has any public role and has never sought any sort of public position. I'm sufficiently satisfied to agree that he isn't notable, but the title of Duke of Manchester is and it is of interest to readers of the article Duke of Manchester who the current Duke could be. If there was some confirmation Alexander Montagu is definitely the 13th Duke, I will explicitly leave the option to create a redirect available to anybody able to provide cast iron referencing at Duke of Manchester regarding the current title holder (or whether the title is presently vacant etc) but as there's a question hanging over that at the moment, I'm going to Delete the article. Nick (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester[edit]

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

Mr. Montagu does not pass Wikipedia's "notability" bar. He has an inherited title, but that's about it. He has not been the subject of any single newspaper article focusing on his life and times, hopes, fears, dreams, successes, failures etc... let alone multiple ones, let alone the sorts of book length biographies/long features in the quality press that would be required at minimum to treat him fairly. He has been married three times, and it's clear that his first two wives don't like him very much. There are a smattering of articles that mention his disputes with his former wives (and their claims against him, which he disputes), and a brief flurry of interest when the legitimacy of one of his marriages was questioned. However, the courts ruled that his marriage was legit and that was the end of that. Furthermore, the press frequently repeats claims made by interested parties in disputes without getting to the bottom of the matter - the ground truth. An ephemeral newspaper article is one thing; the top search engine hit for a person's name, presumably for eternity, that presents itself as a neutral encyclopedia article, is something else again. The only way an article could fairly be written on this man would be to do an extensive amount of original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. He has clearly had some minor legal troubles - fair or unfair I can't say. But so have millions of people. He is being singled out purely because of an inherited title (a fact which he had no control over) and basic empathy should make this an easy delete. He has a brief mention on the Wikipedia article on the noble family he belongs to, which is appropriate and sufficient. (Full disclosure, this came to my attention after chatting briefly about it with Montagu on the web forum Wikipediocracy.) Dan Murphy (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunately, we do not have a policy of deleting articles based on the subject's being unhappy with the book and news coverage he has received, and the Duke can not avail himself of the argument that he is notable for one event. Some links satisfying WP:BASIC: Splendour & Squalor: The Disgrace and Disintegration of Three Aristocratic Dynasties Duke of Manchester's illegitmate children have claim to estate, judge rules, [50], [51], Royal Title for Sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I'm sure his wives would offer an alternate view to the Duke's, but we are not here to write an article on 'someone with legal troubles'. The Peerage of the United Kingdom are notable citizens by dint of their birth, and where references are found, they are included. Dan, I'm unhappy with the Duke stalking me through Google, by the way. [52]. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He appears unhappy that you're helping to run a scandal sheet that happens to be the top search hit for his name and stalking him through Google too. So it goes.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, with regards to yourself and Montagu, I think it's wise that I don't feed the trolls. You know that Wikipedia isn't 'a Scandal sheet', and that we have no control over Google's algorithms. Montagu's next step should be to seek legal redress against the Daily Mail, The Telegraph and The Age, although I think this highly unlikely. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of a policy that would have his peerage status confer notability by itself, though clearly it is a major factor in why WP:RS reliable sources have written about him. But we should be clear that he is notable for our purpose because sources have written about him, not because of birthright. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dan Murphy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a peer, the page is well sourced. Here's an enormously detailed discussion on this page on Wikipediocracy. [53] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how "he's a peer" is a reason to keep this (poorly sourced) article? To me it's like saying "he's left-handed."Dan Murphy (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of Hyacinth? John lilburne (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just got back from her village fete and bake sale! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dan Murphy lays out nicely how Montagu fails notability.→Stani Stani 01:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andreas JN 466 09:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. (And same disclosure.) I can't see any reason why this individual is notable enough for an article. — Scott • talk 13:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two of the three newspaper article references and the "Splendour and Squalor" book are ample sources. Notoriety is enough for Notability. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dan Murphy lays out a compelling case. I do not believe "notoriety is enough for notability", like my colleague above. Optimom (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What a heartwarming emotional plea by the nominator. Too bad that actually he passes ~~WP:ANYBIO~~ WP:BASIC and as such, no policy-based reason to delete. If the person is unhappy about sources talking about him, he should take it with the sources -we just report what they say. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding right? "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" - nope. That leaves "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Awards - nope. That leaves the "honor" part, which presumably you are saying applies to his titles. The subject has publicly stated that he has declined to be entered on the Roll of the Peerage, and in fact he is not on it. The law of the UK states that any person not entered on the Roll shall not be entitled to the precedence of a peer or addressed or referred to as a peer in any official document. So Mr. Montagu hasn't "received an honor". He doesn't pass. — Scott • talk 14:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -my mistake in linking policy. I wanted to say it passes WP:BASIC. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We shouldn't be cobbling together "biographies" out of tabloid tittle-tattle. *** Crotalus *** 19:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.--Yopie (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- If he were not a member of the top rank of the British peerage, there is no doubt that he would (without question) be NN. However, what has become of the less reputable members of the nobility, following the disipation of the family estates to to death duties, debts, or plain profligacy is a matter of some interest. The article on the 10th Duke says that he spent most of his inheritance, but the references to litigation over the legitmacy of certain children make it clear that there is something left. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dan Murphy. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 05:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was previously closed as "Delete", but owing to concerns over the arguments and consensus (and my reading of it) I have reopened the discussion for further comments and for a clearer consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I see notability coming from one aspect here: dukes are implicitly notable. This is not a minor title. This is a level in the peerage sufficiently high that no credible case can be made that a duke in the British peerage is non-notable.

The legal issues I don't see as conveying notability, however they do justify their inclusion here. If he was a commoner, we wouldn't have this article. Although as there's a source describing it as, "one of the most scandalous and expensive marital court cases in California" then maybe we would.

I am particularly concerned that this AfD appears to have been raised with serious issues of COI and off-wiki canvassing via Wikipediocracy [54]. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Read above. According to the law of this country, he is a commoner, and no amount of tabloid tittle-tattlers saying "but he was born into nobility" will change that.

(b) Wikipedia editors can talk about Wikipedia matters wherever they want, including Wikipediocracy. This AfD was participated in by editors in good standing. Are you similarly "concerned" about what happens on IRC, which unlike Wikipediocracy is conducted in secret, off the Web? — Scott • talk 13:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A claim that "The Duke of Manchester is not the Duke of Manchester" would be an interesting one. It would require sources, for one thing. Apparently, per past talk:, where I was sternly corrected on this by Breadbasket, there are two Duchesses of Manchester. One would think that you can't have one without the other. Also, if he hasn't taken the title and we can source this, there's in-turn a pretty good notability case that that action and its WP:V coverage makes a notable topic in its own right. Per Viscount Stansgate, we give sizable coverage to the best known case of such a thing happening.

As for IRC, then I'm against secrecy in WP operations, wherever it's done. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've gotten it back-to-front. The onus is upon anyone supporting the continued existence of this article to prove that Montagu is a peer, not to disprove it. As noted above, the Roll of the Peerage is the only definitive source as to whether a person is a peer or not, and Montagu is not on it. Consequently, they will find the task is impossible. No matter what some newspapers may claim, as sources on the peerage they are completely and irrevocably trumped by the official record established by the law of this country. The newspaper hacks are simply and provably wrong on the matter of whether this man is a peer or not, and to use their claims as the founding basis for an article is to give them more credence than the powers granted to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs by the Royal Warrant of 2004. — Scott • talk 14:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can source the fact that he has rejected the peerage, then I'm listening. However in the meantime, I'm seeing broadsheet newspapers that are generally considered to be reliable sources describing him as "Duke". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Montagu himself has stated it in the course of discussing this article, and I linked to it above. Also, did you not read what I just explained to you about the superior source for who is considered a peer? — Scott • talk 18:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Montagu himself has stated" Then he may be correct, but he's not WP:RS to local rules.

Agreed, I can't see him listed on the Roll of the Peerage source that you gave. However I can't turn that absence into WP:RS either, certainly not when it contradicts broadsheet newspapers that know far more about the peerage than I do. Is there any statement (Times? London Gazette?) along the lines of "I renounce this title"? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "only people on the Roll of the Peerage are peers" is causing you difficulty? — Scott • talk 20:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a source that states "every peer is on this list and there are no peers who are not on this list", with sufficient clarity and robustness to WP:Verify that WP:RS like the Telegraph (a reliable newspaper known for taking rather an interest in the UK peerage) are getting it completely wrong when they describe him as "Duke of Manchester". Secondly this source would have to clarify the meaning of the Roll. So he can't take a seat in the Lords without inclusion, but can he choose to be entered on the Roll in the future? Can he still pass on a title to his children? That's unclear as yet – yet someone who can do that still has a claim "to be a duke" far more than you or I do. If we have hereditary titles, and if their inheritance is considered notable (which for living dukes I believe to be the case), then this should depend on that inheritance, not just their acceptance. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have the source. It's called the Royal Warrant of 2004, and is quoted from and linked to in the article about the Roll. The Roll is the ultimate determinant of whether a person is or is not a peer, which is a status defined in law, not by accident of birth. Can he apply in the future? Will his children get a title? Who cares? You may recall that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Montagu is not a peer right now.

All newspapers make mistakes, the Telegraph included. Their mistake was to refer to Mr. Montagu as a duke, when that title is not given to him by Government or Crown. — Scott • talk 22:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So do you actually know the answer as to whether not appearing of the Roll is permanent, or if he could choose to accept the title in the futur? Whether he can pass the title to children? If either of these are the case (and what I've read of the Roll is silent on these aspects) then he still has some degree of ducal status not shared with commoners. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I'm going to need you to put down the original research and back away slowly from the keyboard. — Scott • talk 23:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then source your claim that there is nothing notable about a guy whom multiple sources describe as "Duke of Manchester". The Roll is clear that he's not on the Roll, but it's stilll far from clear just what the Roll means overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's your turn to do some explaining now. I've already conclusively demonstrated that the highest authority in the land - literally - does not call this man "Duke". The onus here is upon you to provide a reason why we would. No "what if"s or "there might be"s. A solid, unequivocal, known-fact-based reason. I'm waiting. — Scott • talk 23:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately the world is not as you would 'if' it. John lilburne (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a good reason to call him Duke is that the RSs make it clear that he has used that title in Australia, Canada and the U.S. Whether that title has any meaning there or in England (where it seems he does not currently have the right after 2004 to demand to be called Sir) is unduly legalistic. Dingo1729 (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Montagu himself that is completely untrue. See link I'm posting further down this page. — Scott • talk 23:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy of a 1997 letter from Montagu, in which he signs himself "Viscount Mandeville Baron Montagu 13th Duke of Manchester" (and a Californian address). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject is notable per WP:GNG. However, as a second choice, redirect to Duke of Manchester so that the article can be re-created if further news coverage of him appears. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Crotalus Horridus puts it very well above. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Bloodlines and gossip are not a sufficient basis to expose someone(who has not sought the limelight) to a wikipedia biography. Kablammo (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jim Hawkins (radio presenter), AfD 1, AfD 2, AfD 3, WP:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2, WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 67#Right not to have a Wikipedia article about onself? a UK subject who (very clearly) does not wish to have an article about themselves is forced to endure one. Why, apart from canvassing the AfD nominator directly at Wikipediocracy, is this one any different?

Also, at a high enough level, bloodlines are a sufficient reason to have an article, that's what Prince Edward is for. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's a Duke, whether he wants to act like one or not. The sourcing to The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail and published book source are adequate. Closing admin should consider vote stacking from Wikipediocracy. At worst, redirect to Duke of Manchester. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC) I also have to point out that he has provided material for his entry in Who's Who, which makes him a "public figure" in my book. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a nob does not confer notability especially when he does not exercise any of the privileges of the title. There is also sufficient dispute about the accuracy of some of the newspaper reports that I don't think that Wikipedia should provide its imprimatur to the claims made therein.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dan Murphy. Listen, if he does something of note, then by all means. But what, he's been married a few times? Been in jail? This has happened to millions of people... Why should this one be singled out? Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"if he does something of note, " He has, and it was duly noted by a number of national newspapers. That's how WP:N & WP:RS works. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Wikipedia being beholden to every stupid newspaper decision is a good idea. Some editorial discretion should be required of us editors. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be the head of the Montagu family, an historical significant noble clan; and slightly wayward Dukes are always tremendous fun, ref his brief term in prison. There are few Dukes who can claim that. Irondome (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tremendous fun"? I don't think "fun" is quite the right word to describe longstanding BLP violations, like listing minors' birth dates based on primary sources. Andreas JN 466 09:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus practice is clearly to treat such titleholders as notable. Well-sourced reports of bad behavior and criminal behavior are not, in this context, justification for deletion of the article. I'm in sympathy with a comment some time ago, which I can't track down, that being a descendent of a medieval war criminal shouldn't generate notability, but that's not something to be settled here. I also note that one news account cited above identifies him as having been a member of the House of Lords, so he would also be notable as having been a member of a national legislature. And the story of him putting his title up for sale might have inspired a story line in Doonesbury, where Zonker bought a similar title. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being the descendant of a medieval war criminal doesn't convey notability. Being part of a contemporary socio-political system that still rewards descendants of medieval war criminals and grants them special status, that's what conveys notability. Britain does still work on that basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dukes, and people descended from dukes, are noble and are usually notable. Also, if he's not the current Duke of Manchester, who is?--Auric talk 03:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only specific notability guideline is a failed proposal, Wikipedia:Notability (royalty), which WP:Notability (nobility) redirects to. There's inherent notability for peers with seats in the House of Lords, but without that inheritance of a title isn't clear evidence of meeting the guidelines, even if the title is notable - evidence of significant coverage is needed. Peter James (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone voting in this discussion should read the comments being by Montagu himself ("Mancunium") about the accuracy of the newspaper claims before commenting here. They appear to be propagating a number of falsehoods, which we should not be repeating. — Scott • talk 23:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errors are a reason to fix it, not to delete it.

I'd also remind you that we have a clear COI account at Wikipediocracy (who might be Montagu, but refers to himself in the 3rd person) claiming that usually reliable sources are wrong, yet failing to give solid evidence to the contrary. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Once you correct the biggest error in this article - the claim that this guy is a peer - it no longer has a reason to exist. How the hell is it a "COI" for someone to point out massive errors in their own biography? (Also, try actually reading the thread. All of it. It is Montagu.) And what is this "solid evidence to the contrary"? You want him to prove a negative? He was the one who pointed out that he's not on the Roll of the Peerage. — Scott • talk 00:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate for Mr. Montagu that his past bad behaviour keeps following him around. If he wants to not be connected to it he can use the very, very simple expedient of simply not going around telling people that he's the Duke of Manchester. After all he seems to be half saying that is what he wants. But he also wants to keep whatever petty advantage he gets from the title. He has the right to sink into deserved obscurity, but to do that he needs to stop publicizing himself. He needs to take action, not Wikipedia. I'm surprised that some people believe what he says is gospel truth. After reading Wikipediocracy the Daily Mail looks more trustworthy. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For as long as an unconfirmed identity on an open forum site persists in insulting WP editors, rather than providing any sources to the contrary of the Telegraph et al., then he's still not making any convincing case. Andy Dingley (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell is it a "COI" for someone to point out massive errors in their own biography? - Tampering with your own bio is the very definition of COI, in my book. Mind you: it can be a good thing that errors are pointed to us by the bio subject, but still COI is. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assumming it to be correct that he was at some time a member of the House of Lords, it meets our rule about national level legislatures, which is sufficient to decide the matter. Myself, I consider that Dukes in countries where such are legally recognized titles are notable by our usual practice,(any instances in the past where articles on British Dukes were deleted?) and people with enough publicity for claiming to be dukes by a common sense extension. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The 12th Duke was a member of the House of Lords, until the House of Lords Act 1999. there's no Duke of Manchester (either 12th or 13th) listed at List of elected hereditary peers under the House of Lords Act 1999 or By-elections to the House of Lords. Peter James (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're now starting to get pile-on voters who don't do even the slightest shred of due diligence before deciding that this meritless scandal sheet masquerading as a biography needs to be kept in perpetuity. — Scott • talk 00:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "pile-on" ? You mean the way that the two most outspoken calls for deletion here, you and Dan, are from the people most active at Wikipediocracy? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for making it crystal clear that your intent in keeping this article is motivated not by a desire to improve the project, but by a dislike of the website on which it was first raised as an issue. — Scott • talk 11:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Andy Dingley and Scott have each posted 13 times in this discussion, mostly arguing with each other. I think both of you have made your positions clear and offered all possible arguments for them. Maybe time to leave it to other people. It's already taxing enough to read right through this thread. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for offering to stuff a sock in my mouth, but I respectfully decline. If it's "taxing" to you, there are plenty of other things you could be doing on Wikipedia. — Scott • talk 11:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. No, I can stand it, thanks. What I meant by "taxing" was that swamping by the two of you is making it more and more unlikely that others will be tempted to take in this discussion and contribute to it. It's currently seven screenfuls on my good big monitor. But I will take my own advice and say no more. Bishonen | talk 11:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

There is no need for that kind of response to a reasonable request. If you disagree with this request, you can decline in a civil manner. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utter tripe. "Shut up" is not a reasonable request. — Scott • talk 20:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you get into a heated argument with someone and the argument just gets stuck in a repetitive back and forth. It's at that point that you should realize you've made your point, there is no further point to make, and there is no point in continuing the same repetitive arguments. That is the time to step away from your keyboard for a bit. Gamaliel (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has generated his own notability. Gamaliel (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As there is no legal basis for referring to this individual as "Duke of Manchester" (see discussion above regarding the Roll of the Peerage) I have accordingly moved the article to Alexander Montagu. — Scott • talk 21:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When excluding the consideration of his title, there are no factors that make the Duke of Manchester notable. He is not an MP. He is not an executive editor. He does not lead a company with several hundred employees. In other words, he is not what I call a power person. However, in a traditional class society like the British, he enjoys high social status and influence; newspapers would not write about him if he hadn't got status and influence. ... If the title itself makes the Duke notable, this biography would still be problematic, as there are several claims and—on the other extreme—almost no reliable sources. A basic criterion should be that basic information reaches a reasonable degree of consensus. Oppositely of this, many contributors cannot even decide whether he is a duke or not (which he is). — Breadbasket 00:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Burke´s [55] and Debretr´s [56] he is Duke of Manchester. Question is: Can he be duke without be Peer? By my opinion, yes.--Yopie (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The duke is not a notable person, yes he has been noted in the gutter press but only in relation to whatever scraps of titillation those rags cann pick up - that leads to an inevitable WP:NPOV violation, the only way to avoid which is to remove the secondary sourced material leaving a non-notable remaindervsourced to primaries. Delete it just now if a neutral biography appears later then consider whether it should be recreated. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph is hardly a 'gutter press' rag'! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any definition I can find of "Gutter Press" points to the nature of the journalist's investigation - not the nature of where it is published. While some newspapers are identified with the the term it's because they rely on that style of journalism. In this case the article does fit the definition of "Sensationalist articles often focusing on the private lives of individuals." If it's going to print sensationalist nonsense about a nobody then the Telegraph deserves to be called a "Rag". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the Telegraph becomes a tabloid because it prints non-notable gossip, and he's non-notable because only tabloids mention him? Nice circular logic. Are you applying it to Burke's and Debrett's too? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can it become a tabloid without changing paper size? Your argument is just making you look silly, he's not notable because he's been noted in relation to one sensationalist story - I'm sure there are thousands of people out there in similar circumstances who don't get articles because they don't happen to be dukes and it's the reason we have a BLP1E policy. Burke's and Debretts are primary sources and they certainly don't speak to either notability and do not provide enough information to base an article on. Again we do not write a biography of everyone who is in their guides (and some who are notable and in the guides don't have it mentioned in their articles.) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject is insufficiently notable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep - meets our standards of coverage in the press and in books, whatever I may think of hoi aristoi and their foibles. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable on any wider stage. Intothat darkness 17:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted." —Deletion Guidelines. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Take into account" and "agree with the request" are two very different things. One can take into account, and then still decide for retention. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's look at this properly, shall we. He is not a Duke, nor is he a peer - so there's no notability from that regard. Wikipedia may be about verifiability, and not truth, but I'm pretty sure we can tell that the source made an error. Being of a notable family lineage is definitely not grounds for notability - see WP:NOTINHERITED. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, and I facepalmed when I saw someone referring to it as such. The AAP source is reasonably reliable, and isn't purely routine, so that's an OK source, although it is quite tabloid-esque. That said, it's for just one event. The Age (Melbourne) was a local source to the event that it describes, so doesn't construe notability. We can leave the Peerage sources aside - they're not going to show any further notability. The Daily Telegraph source is for exactly the same event as the AAP source, so that doesn't go any further towards notability. It's irrelevant that those two sources happen to mention previous convictions as well. Essentially, it's a BLP that reads like an attack page, which would be enough to remove it on its own, regardless of sourcing. The reliable, national-level coverage is centred around one event, and appears to not have been sustained. So, this article should go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:01, 28 June 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. L Faraone 04:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury law[edit]

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

Deproded by author.WP:MADEUP,WP:NOR. Müdigkeit (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism coined for the commercial Luxury Law Summit. - Dravecky (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. A "luxury law" actually was an anti-luxury law, see [57]; it has been either a luxury tax or sumptuary law. This dastardly page turns it around, in an Orwellian sense. There is no established meaning of the term "luxury law" to mean protection of brand names, at least not until some law firm made it up. Eliminating spam pages set up by a law firm as self-serving, as well as law of attraction fringe-y web pages, there are no sources online for this concept as defined by this page. By the way, sometimes, commercial realtors will list "luxury law offices" that are well-appointed, but not that they practice something called "luxury law". Wikipedia may not be a 51 % democracy, but neither are we here to spread propaganda for the 1 %. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 1 July 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) czar · · 16:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rain (video game)[edit]

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

Upcoming video games are not usually notable, unless they generate enough buzz before their release. This doesn't appear to be the case - few minor mentions on a websites that list most upcoming games is not enough. Suggest userfying (this may become notable after the release, after all). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's worth noting it was mentioned and had a trailer reveal during Sony's E3 keynote this year, would that establish nobility? Skullbird11 (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Directly, no, but probably indirectly. While their presentation itself wouldn't help go towards meeting the WP:GNG, the fact that it was featured at such a large scale presentation goes to show that the third party coverage needed to meet the GNG is very likely to exist. The odds of a large corporation doing a huge presentation on it, and no third parties reporting on it, is probably going to be rather slim. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can do more source hunting if need be, but if the number of articles IGN alone has on the game is any indicator, there is plenty of coverage out there to meet the WP:GNG... Sergecross73 msg me 01:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of reliable sources exist for this game, including webpages with Rain as its main subject, instead of "minor mentions". ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 05:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage already, but confirmed that there's more than just beyond IGN that have talked about this game. Yes, normally, a game with a little bit of prerelease coverage should probably be covered in other facets, but as a new IP, it's hard to do that, so a separate article is reasonable at this time. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. ignoring the single-purpose accounts with no policy based reasoning, consensus is quite clear. Secret ^account 18:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of WAMPs[edit]

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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

WAMP is encyclopedic and notable. IMHO, listing the various commercial WAMP offering falls foul of WP:NOTDIR. No enyclopedic content is added through this list, or through the related articles. Accordingly they should go.

Reasons to keep some or all would be if any can demonstrate encyclopedically distinctive aspects to a particular distro, such that they distinguish it from the others. Merely listing version numbers though is not enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related members of this list:

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, really (Category:Software comparisons), but this simply means we should be discussing the deletion of this entire category (or pointing to discussions/policies on this from the past), as this article is representative of much wider type of a potential problem. That said, for the record, I do think that such comparisons are useful, and as encyclopedic as most lists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think comparisons can be useful, provided that we make genuine comparisons and discuss technical aspects. Mere lists though, not. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The 'Comparison' doesn't compare very much - do to the nature of WAMPs differences are minor, just slightly different versions of the same open source packages - it really is more of a list. The specific members mentioned all lack reliable third party sources and should be deleted per WP:GNG. - MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just searched for different WAMP setups and the wiki article is exactly what I wanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.40.125 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC) — 82.5.40.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I agree with previous comment85.225.228.123 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — 85.225.228.123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Agree with Andy Dingley, comparisons are useful. Wikipedia has an opportunity to be a canonical resource for software comparisons, as different groups want them. When I have to research software, I always look at Wikipedia and generally find 2-4 resources I had not found through search engines. The trick is for Wikipedia to set an appropriate level of detail required for these comparisons: enough to not be a list but not so much detail the community is overwhelmed providing the minimum useful detail (which, for me, is a product name, license type, software language). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimSlavin (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I used to help maintain this list, and at one point cleaned it up entirely of dead and abandoned WAMPs (which made up the majority of the list). Sometime after, several editors determined that only WAMPs with wiki-pages could be included, at which point this list became useless and disingenuous.

This list does not represent the current WAMP ecosystem at all. It only shows a minor sub-set of some older WAMPs that have wiki-pages (and for some reason Uniform Server twice). 4 active + 3 dead WAMPs, total.
The various WAMPs are already cataloged via Wikipedia's Category:WAMP, or can be found with the keyword through the search box.
The comparisons in this list are rather weak and minor. This type of thing belongs outside of Wikipedia, perhaps on a Talk page or someone's website.
There is no sound argument against the fact that this list is not encyclopedic, or notable, or comprehensive at all. It just shows a small number of 3rd-party packages/distributions of Apache, PHP, and MySQL. Most of these distributions are not much more than zips or install-wrappers around the open-source software, under a custom folder structure and configuration. And most of these distributions are identical to the other except for some minor version difference or some minor configuration difference... If you were to clean this list of the mentioned distributions (that are virtually clones of each other), it would have 1 or maybe 2 rows in it.

Vorlion (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a technical manual. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:13, 3 July 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 and open a discussion on the article's title. Wow, quite an unusual AfD. The consensus seems to be that, title aside, the content of this article is notable. That is demonstrated by sources in the article, as pointed out by a number of editors here. The majority of the arguments for deletion are based on the view that 'do not feed the animals' as a phrase is not notable. Though relevant to this discussion, that does not effect the notability of the article's contents. However, it has been convincingly argued that the phrase itself is not notable (with useful reference to WP:WORDISSUBJECT); this point has been conceded by most of those who have argued to keep the article. The result therefore is that, while the contents of the article probably are notable, the subject as defined by the title is not. This seems to be caused by a mismatch between the article's title and contents. Thus, the consensus seems to be that the article should be kept, because the contents is notable, but the title should be changed. Therefore, I will close this debate as keep, but open a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the article's title. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not feed the animals[edit]

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

Not notable; merely a common phrase Dan Griscom (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is notable, being discussed in detail in numerous sources, as may be seen from the search links above. Warden (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: By "the concept", do you mean the phrase as a phrase, which the first and fourth paragraphs refer to, or the notion of zoos and parks forbidding visitors to feed animals, which the second and third paragraphs treat. I don't claim that either of those ideas is or is not notable, just that they are different things, which the current article kind of blurs. Cnilep (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think anyone is interested in the phrase qua phrase — its exact construction and grammar. It is the message which matters and this can be expressed in other words or just a symbolic sign. I especially like this one :) Warden (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There should be an article on the effects of humans feeding wildlife, which this phrase could properly redirect to. I couldn't find one at current. For this to stay an article as it is started, it would need to be demonstrated there is a pop cultural significance w/o resorting to original research - i.e. sources talking about the pop cultural aspect would be needed, not just sources used to document examples of it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, it looks like ThaddeusB beat me to the punch. I came back after researching the policy to see the above comment. I agree 100% as it falls under WP:WORDISSUBJECT. What needs to happen here is that the term must be shown to be more than just a term. The social influence of the term should be established as just because it exists as a term does not make it notable. I did a quick search but could not find the sources talking about significance of the term. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep The topic seems to be as notable, or more, than lots of expressions with articles here. Right now there are no sources and it's mainly one person's musings. But that could be changed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources now. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FoolMeOnce2Times's reference to WP:WORDISSUBJECT clarifies my objection to the article. The fact that "Do not feed the animals" has been said or written often does not make it merit an article; there needs to be something about the phrase itself which is notable. As such, references which merely use the phrase don't justify the article; only references which discuss the phrase as an entity unto itself can make that case. In reference to Kitfoxxe's comment that the topic "seems to be as notable, or more, than lots of expressions with articles here", I don't see that as a justification; if other articles shouldn't be in Wikipedia, then we should get them deleted as well. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The particular words or phrase are not the topic here. The topic is the prohibition or discouragement of animal feeding in common contexts such as zoos and parks. There are plenty of reasons for this which are discussed in detail in sources. For example, here's a book about feeding zoo animals and this includes details of the difficulty of getting visitors to stop providing food too. Warden (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the fact that it's a common and yet commonly ignored "good idea" makes it notable. Should we have articles on Obey the speed limit? Wear a hat in the sun? Contribute to Wikipedia? Don't run with scissors? Only if the article can include "information on the social or historical significance of the term" (see WP:WORDISSUBJECT) does it become WP-worthy. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those other articles, see speed limit; sun hat; Wikipedia community and running with scissors. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so the exact phrase or title of a topic is unimportant. What matters is the underlying concept and we have one here. Warden (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward a weak keep. As ThaddeusB, FoolMeOnce2Times, and Warden seem to suggest, the concepts of controlling the feeding of wild or domestic animals seems article-worthy, notwithstanding the fact that, as Dan Griscom and Warden each point out, this precise phrase is probably not. I don't find discussion of control of feeding at animal husbandry, consumer-resource systems, or food web. If there is an article, I should think that it would relate to zoology, agriculture, or ecology rather than philology. Cnilep (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your argument applying to an article titled The Feeding of Animals, with a section on when and what you shouldn't feed them (I think said article would be non-notable for other reasons). Or perhaps this should become a subsection of Zoo#Sources and care of animals, without the stress on the precise phrase (I'd actually support that). But that's not what this article is: it's an article about a specific phrase and its importance. And I don't think the specific phrase is notable. (BTW: I'm going to taper off my comments; this can't be a one-man deletion campaign, and I have yet to see much support from other editors.) -- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While an article like, for example, Impact of feeding on wildlife would be good, this is more of an advice column than an encyclopedia entry. It's also pretty hard for me to picture a way that you could fit a topic like that into an article with such an idiosyncratic title. Hermione is a dude (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rewritten. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been trying to find a redirect target, and failing, so this is the next best option. I don't feel this phrase itself meets WP:N, merely the concept - and an article about the concept shouldn't be tied to this specific phrase. When it is found or made, though, a redirect would be appropriate. Ansh666 19:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, move any appropriate content on the concept per Dan's suggestion below, although I'd support the creation of a centralized article at a different name. Ansh666 21:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This already is the centralised article, so all it needs is a better name. I must admit, though, that I can't think of one. -- 202.124.89.4 (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interesting and possibly notable, as has been suggested. The article needs a lot of work. Can anyone userfy it? Bearian (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to make more explicit the proposal I floated above. How about we merge the interesting parts of this article into Zoo#Sources and care of animals (the section already exists) and Wildlife management#Custodial management (there's a bullet on "Custodial management", but this article's content could be part of an upgraded section). That would preserve the knowledge and content, while avoiding the problem that the presumed topic of this article, the phrase Do not feed the animals, itself isn't notable. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a good idea - I amended my statement above accordingly. Ansh666 21:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with possible title change. The phrase isn't notable, but the concept of not feeding animals certainly is, as reflected by the sources in the article (and lots more material could clearly be added). Since the concept relates to zoos, national parks, and wildlife generally, a standalone article avoids duplication of the content in Zoo and Wildlife management. Those articles should link to here. -- 202.124.89.4 (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I notice that not liking the current article title seems to be the main deletion argument. If anyone can think of a better title for the concept, the best thing to do is probably to start a move request on the article talk page. -- 202.124.89.39 (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept is certainly notable as per the references in the article currently. Someone suggested merging to a zoo subsection above, but the concept applies both to zoos and wildlife parks (and even suburban and rural back yards) [58]. The title is informal and prescriptive, but a google news search reveals many reliable sources entitling the topic exactly the same way. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think people are missing an important distinction. The information contained in the article is indeed interesting and useful, and deserves a home in Wikipedia (I've suggested one option above). The problem is the article's topic, which is the phrase "Do not feed the animals". See WP:WORDISSUBJECT: when a word or phrase is the topic of an article, it must in and of itself pass Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. None of the article's references talk about "Do not feed the animals" as an interesting phrase: they just talk about bystanders not feeding animals. That's why I raised the specter of articles on Obey the speed limit, Wear a hat in the sun, and Contribute to Wikipedia: each of these articles clearly could contain important information, but just as clearly should not be in Wikipedia because their topics (the phrases themselves) aren't in and of themselves notable. (Someone raised the counterexamples of speed limit, sun hat and Wikipedia community, but none of these articles are about a specific phrase, so the distinction was clearly missed.) My conclusion: if the phrase "Do not feed the animals" can be documented as an important phrase unto itself, or the article can be moved to another phrase where this could be done, then we should keep the article. If not, we should preserve the useful information elsewhere and delete the article. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not in fact about the phrase qua phrase, but about the (notable) topic of not feeding animals, so your critique doesn't apply. The present article could perhaps use a title change, but no better title has been suggested, and there is half-hearted support for the existing one. In any case, we don't delete articles simply because the title could be improved. And there is no possibility of confusion between this article and an article about the phrase qua phrase, since everyone agrees that there should be no article about the phrase qua phrase. -- 202.124.73.1 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of this article is "Do not feed the animals" is an exhortation reflecting a policy of not feeding animals which might be harmed by the feeding. To me, this states clearly that this article is about the phrase "Do not feed the animals". If the article is not about this phrase, then we must change the first sentence to state the real topic, and change the title to correspond to the new topic (although I have yet to see an alternative title that would encompass a notable topic). If this article is about this phrase, then we need to follow WP:WORDISSUBJECT and document the notability of the phrase "Do not feed the animals" with suitable references. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And let me be clear: I don't think either of these approaches will result in an article that meets Wikipedia's standards. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that the not-feeding of animals in zoos and parks is notable; the overwhelming weight of sources settles that. Everything else is cleanup. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. This phrase is not. Ansh666 01:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about the phrase. Nobody wants an article about the phrase. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the title. The title is the phrase. Therefore, the article is about the phrase. You're advocating deletion, not keeping the article. Ansh666 02:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the content of the article. A number of people have indicated that the title could be improved. And no, I !voted "keep" above. I find your argument bizarre. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC) to[reply]

You might want to look at WP:Naming, then. Like below, I'm leaving. Ansh666 02:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that temperatures (mine included) are getting a bit high here, and more discussion isn't likely to change the participants' opinions (mine included). We're two days from the week anniversary of the re-listing; I'm going to stop commenting and wait for the closing administrator to sort it out, hopefully with a clear explanation of his/her reasoning (including if the article is again re-listed). Thanks for everyone's contribution. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Additional !votes (going either way) are of course still welcome. However, it's worth noting WP:LOUSYTITLE and WP:HEY. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a view to merging, or restructuring and retitling. The amateur/casual/recreational feeding of animals is undoubtedly a notable topic. It is much more than just signs. It is a subject for historic domestication of current pet animals, pigeons nuisance in cities, and inviting bears to see humans as food. We should cover it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've already !voted to keep above even with the current title, but in the spirit of comity, might I suggest a different one: Artificial feeding of wildlife? As a note, our definition of wildlife encompasses zoo animals as they are not domesticated. The term "artificial feeding" is used by people in the relevant fields, see, e.g. [59], [60] and is even in the article a couple times already. The "of wildlife" is needed to distinguish the animal case from the more commonly referenced human case, see, e.g., [61]. I still think that the current title should remain as a redirect as a more common search term. This is more properly posed as a move suggestion on the article's talk page, but let's not let a rule get in the way of improvement. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable alternate title, but article moves during the AfD process are generally not a good idea (WP:Don't move articles at AfD), so lets have the move discussion later. Thanks for working on improving the article, though! -- 202.124.89.16 (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion works for me and back at you for the good WP:HEY work. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as one of those core articles that belong in Wikipedia Clearly, by the sheer number and depth of potential citations, this is a notable phrase. Per SmokeyJoe, this is the sort of thing that Wikipedia ought to cover. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Zoo, perhaps in a Section called "Typical policies" or something like that. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not just about zoos. 86.150.211.181 (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to another title and restructure, or merge into zoo per Willstro. I admit I've kicked around writing a "How's my driving?" article for something like 5 years now, but now that I see this and think on it, the better choice might be to place the article at a broader title. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article covers national parks and backyards as well as zoos. And a move discussion can certainly be held later. -- 203.171.197.20 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And what kind of restructure do you think is needed? -- 202.124.88.7 (talk) 11:33, 4 July 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. L Faraone 04:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Freak Next Door[edit]

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

Neither The Freak Next Door nor Two Women, One Heart come close to meeting the notability requirements for a film. Almost all sources are from IMDB. The others are from either YouTube, a Facebook page, or a passing mention of them as being shown at a festival. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 17:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 17:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I searched for a while, but found nothing to support an article. Appears to be self-promotion. Grayfell (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that more will be put up about these in the future. It is not self-promotion, I was not involved in the making of these films. AnimationWhiz133 (talk) 2 June 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your ~~declaration~~ explanation toward personal interest in the project. Please read WP:NFF to understand our need that the topic be discussed in independent reliable sources in order to show notability enough for inclusion. Also please study WP:COI to understand Wikipedia's concerns when someone writes about a topic with which they have too personal an interest. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF. While it might become notable enough for us in the future, at this time it is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NF. I was unable to find material about the films as well - the only source seems to be IMdB.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mark Flood (animator). No need to waste the content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced material, then redirect. Possible search term. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still merge, as there is the possibility that Flood will be kept. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Mark Flood (animator), and redirect; neither film is sufficiently notable (yet) for a standalone article. Delete; merge target is also non-notable at this time. Miniapolis 19:47, 13 June 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ due to Mark Flood's notability. I just did some research, and there appears to be no independent assessment of the film (any kind of review) for this work of fiction to warrant its own article. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Mark's notablity is up for debate as well. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 19:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, I overlooked the tag there and only saw paragraphs that I assumed were valid content. Have struck out my vote for now; let me review his article then this one. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of general notability. The filmmaker is not notable either; I have supported deletion at Mark Flood (animator). Can the editors who suggested merging (ChrisGualtieri, Crisco 1492, and Miniapolis) also review the animator's article and see if they still agree about merging? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge, as Mark Flood (animator) isn't notable either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:17, 2 July 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. L Faraone 04:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seraph Group[edit]

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

Advertisement, orphan, notability. References are on user-generated content sites. Notnoteworthy (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company gets some mentions in Google News Archive, but not enough for notability. About half the article (and most of the references) are devoted to explaining the concept of angel investing, rather than being about this company. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, outside of passing mentions in multiple non-primary reliable sources, I have not found non-press release significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources regarding the subject of this AfD; therefore, at this time it appears that the subject of this AfD fails notability as defined by WP:GNG. As such, the article should be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 25 June 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) czar · · 16:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary, Inc.[edit]

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

Notability, advertisement, orphan Notnoteworthy (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use some improving, but the listed references show significant coverage about the company from a New York Times blog, Information Week, The Register, etc. IMO it clearly passes WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is notable as the coverage shows. SL93 (talk) 14:29, 24 June 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. Can't really say there's "consensus" for anything - but nobody voted to keep this either. -- Y not? 13:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Mad Linx[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:21, 10 June 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 June 10. Snotbot t • c » 19:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 21:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 21:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Having done a search, I couldn't find much. There are passing mentions in articles like this and more substantive stuff like this though it seems there's a commercial sponsorship-style arrangement there so the independence is questionable. There's also this one and the one linked to in the article but I'm not sure whether those are considered reliable sources. That's about all I could find. If the last two "hip hip" sources are reliable, then he probably passes WP:GNG. Stalwart111 06:12, 24 June 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Coconut Generation[edit]

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

Book is on "Ministry to the Americanized Asian Indians" References in the article are either unreliable or not independent. Unable to find any reliable, independent refs about the book. Plenty of blogs or brief mentions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:15, 24 June 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Opera Digest Award for Hottest Male Star[edit]

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

Article about an award given to the hottest male soap star than ran for 6 years. Minor award, only lasted a short time, clearly fails WP:ORG. scope_creep 19:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added what I think are reliable source and also I've seen lots of articles that have awards that only last for about six years. I don't see the problem. SoapFan12 00:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:14, 24 June 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) 18:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Bashir[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:12, 10 June 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 June 10. Snotbot t • c » 19:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 21:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 21:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 21:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The subject's name does get 3 mentions in the "All Music Guide to Hip-Hop", but that is effectively passing coverage and probably too insubstantial to stand in itself as significant coverage establishing notability. AllyD (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:13, 24 June 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 One Block Radius. L Faraone 04:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Man (rapper)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See my lament about BOAC. Same deal, although Z-Man didn’t really come into his own until a few years after BOAC had been a solo artist, but the point is, they’re both famous to 15 people. The difference I can see with Z-Man is that he was signed to a major (Def Jam, and Hiero Imperium is a pretty well-known indie within hip-hop). When I look him up on Google News I get a couple articles from Eureka, California newspaper Times-Standard from when he did shows for the backpacker hacky-sackers of Greater Northern California, a couple other dailies from smaller metros, mentions in free weeklies, and music magazines. Of course, the definition of “significant” is somewhat arbitrary. Oh, and apparently One Block Radius has opened for Snoop Dogg. *shrug* —Wiki Wikardo 02:38, 16 June 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 June 10. Snotbot t • c » 19:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 21:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 21:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to his group, One Block Radius. He does not appear to be notable on his own. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. So instead of kicking this back to no consensus again, the only real RS I'm finding are SF Weekly and All Music, so it doesn't pass the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles, but it's potentially close. Redirect to a notable (or at least more notable—time will tell) group is a better (read: cheap) solution. No cited information to merge. czar · · 05:44, 1 July 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Todd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

References are weak. None show any notability as they are either from non WP:RS sources, or passing mention. does not pass either WP:ACTOR or WP:POLITICIAN. per a statement on article talk page, there have been prior deletions of the same subject. Would suggest WP:SALT after deletion. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Addendum to nomination--Gnews search turned up nothing on this Omar Todd; same for Gbook, Gscholar and JSTOR. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending WP:SALT after deletion Agreed with WP:SALT after deletion from above post. It might stop the obsessive re-adding of an Omar Todd article under various labels: politician, tv star, producer, political leader, and so on and so forth.

By the way... I have added this elsewhere but it's too interesting not to add here. Has anyone bit the bullet and looked at Omar Todd's social media? Fascinatingly popular, that is until you do a little digging. Use one of the social statistic counters (Tweet Stats, Statistics Brain, Social Stackers) and have a look at how they graph his account. I did so here: http://twittercounter.com/OmarSeaShepherd You'll fast notice that as many as 100,000 followers suddenly appear on his accounts in very short bursts over just a few hours at a time. He loses the followers just as quickly as he gets them. This graph shows me that he was -3,405 followers yesterday alone. Then I used the tag on the right to adjust the graph to show the last 3 months. His graph looks like the damn mountain ranges! On Thursday April 18 2013 he lost 27,974 followers in a day; but on April 21 2013 he was back up by 13,552 followers. He's gone from 10,000 to 400,000 followers in five different (and giant) following periods. Twitter following doesn't work like that organically. It's a steady increase without major loss or something is up. This is a tell tale sign that Omar Todd is buying his Twitter followers (and amusingly, losing them just as fast). --PixiePerilot (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BE and [62]. Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC) — PixiePerilot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As a similar version of this article is currently in the incubator, I have asked for assistance at WT:Article Incubator#incubated article created in mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The response from the incubator is that there is no standard process. For this case I suggest deleting the current article and replacing it with

((Portal|Article Incubator))

The English Wikipedia does not currently have an article on this topic.

Unscintillating (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that some of the references in this article showing notability have been removed. Here is a version of the article before the removal. See WT:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (2nd nomination) for an analysis of two of the references that have been removed:

#1 Digital Journal dated 9 January 2013, an in-depth article focused on the topic.
#2 Huffington Post blog dated 16 January 2013, "Speaking of rabble-rousing, some might argue that focusing the public's attention on environmental issues can take a bit of shock value to pull off. Such is the case for Omar Todd, a film producer..."

Unscintillating (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Digital journal is of questionable value as it is sourced in good part back to Wikipedia; The HuffPost is a passing mention in a larger article. Neither is of any value for determining notability. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So what is your point, that it was a good idea to create a new account to remove evidence of notability and rewrite the lede? Do you think this is a newbie that has appealed to two admins asking for a salt and saying, "I'm unable to administer this edit"? Given that this article is going to be deleted one way or another, my puzzle is why anyone would do this. Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I suggest you review the nutshell of WP:N, and review the definition of "passing mention", then save the information for a possible AfD when this article comes out of the incubator. With DJ, I'd say that you are conflating two different issues; wp:notability, and wp:verifiability by way of WP:IRS. WP:IRS states, "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." Yes, DJ identifies deletionwikia.com for elements of the IT career, and the approach I've taken with the incubated article is that that detail is not needed in the article. The fact that they've shown this source when they did does not suddenly make the article "sourced in good part to Wikipedia". This article appears to be a good reference for identifying the role of the topic with Sea Shepherd, which is shown in this reference as a technical volunteer. Various other sources identify this role as "technical director" and even "CIO", which is probably true to an extent, but Sea Shepherd themselves do not show that he is on staff. So Digital Journal appears to be a good source for this point. Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Claiming as you did in the nomination that none of the sources show notability is not a credible position, and the fact that you have not shown any independent Google research makes it also appear that you think that our notability guidelines are defined by sources in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable as a founding member of Wikileaks Party, and also as a producer/director/actor, particularly with Whale Wars. Subject is a key part of Whale Wars and was nominated for a Shorty. Multiple RS on subject including The Age, Digital Journal, HuffPo, Current, CNN. Not all sources are in references. Keep. Aussiepundit (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC) — Aussiepundit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Todd lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The Digital Journal is not a reliable source. The Huffington Post piece is a blog with only a passing mention of him.
Article says he has appeared on “Whale Wars". Whale Wars has no mention of him. IMDb does not list him. The three sources used in this version are a blog (not a reliable source) and two sea shepard pages (not independent and make no mention of Todd being in Whale Wars). The Incubator version also makes that claim. It's sourceing is that same blog and an article about Whale Wars that makes no mention of Todd. As created the Incubator version [63] had another source to support the claim. A blog that states "Such is the case for Omar Todd, a film producer who's also the CIO of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, featured in the award-winning Animal Planet show Whale Wars, in which seafaring conservation activists risk life and limb in the name of saving the whales." This says that Sea Shepard featured and carefully avoids saying Todd did, trying to give the impression he did.
The productions he is invovled with are not notable productions so do not satisfy WP:FILMMAKER.
He has only passing coverage about his part in the Wikileaks Party so at best that should be mentioned in that article.
Article has been repeatedly repoasted by multiple new accounts in various promotional and deceptive forms. Acting in a bad faith manner to try to use Wikipedia to promote this individual.
Someone is playing loose with the truth and trying to use Wikipedia to promote Todd. Deceptive promotional BLPs have no place on Wikipedia. If in doubt ignore all rules to stop the rot. Stop Wikipedia from being overtaken by vanity spam to help preserve its integrity. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only user here (so far) upvoting for 'keep' is AussiePundit himself, the user who created the page for Omar Todd. The user is quite possibly Omar Todd himself. There is no mention of Omar Todd in The Age, Current, or CNN despite claims above from the user AussiePundit. Subject is supposedly a key part of Whale Wars and yet there are no reliable sources to verify that he is a featured or recurring cast member on Whale Wars which would be the only capacity in which he could be considered notable as a tv personality/actor. Fleeting mentions in blog posts and other media do not count and do not represent a need for a Wikipedia account. This is absolutely vanity spam. WP:SALT this article. RangerDividens (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BE and [64]. Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC) — RangerDividens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There are no search results for Omar Todd on The Age or Current. HuffPo mention is from a submitted blog, is fleeting and unsourced. Todd may have conducted the interview with the blogger himself and provided false information as it cannot be cited anywhere. One result for Omar Todd on CNN iReport, a user-generated feature for CNN where users can sign up and submit their own news posts. The one result for Todd was submitted by Todd himself from his user account. Not notable. Omar Todd is not a celebrity. RangerDividens (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BE and [65]. Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Toddd is notable as an actor and director on Whale Wars, the Animal Planet show, and as a founding member of a very real Australian political party. The Age wrote about Todd here: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/gambit-or-gamble-20130525-2n3sr.html Omar Todd was on Whale Wars: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2235148800/nm3619746 See also http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2201594368/nm3619746 I'm seeing deletes come from new W accounts that only vote in this afd. I also see multiple photos of Todd with household name Julian Assange http://www.borderchronicle.com.au/story/1526917/gambit-or-gamble/?cs=8 I'm not Omar Todd, but yes I do know who he is. CNN was also journaled by someone else-- author name clearly says so. This afd is starting to look politically motivated.

Todd was also nominated for a shorty award. http://industry.shortyawards.com/nominee/5th_annual/99/omar-todd-sea-shepherd-technical-director

I am requesting a Keep vote from Unscintillating (talk). I also request that the delete votes from PixiePerilot and RangerDividens not count as they were made to vote in this, only, to date.Aussiepundit (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The farcical claim he is notable as an actor and director on Whale Wars has no basis in reality. The claim he is a director is new. It's not mentioned elsewhere, it's not in any credits I've seen. As an "actor", if claims he appears are true then it's only a minor part in two episodes as himself. Not acting. Not a significant part. Not enough for Animal Planet to supply a bio for him [66]. ~~WP:ACTOR~~ WP:NACTORS asks for significant parts in multiple productions. Todd doesn't even have one. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the appearance a "part" is not consistent with asserting that the topic is not an actor...whatever is contained in the appearance is, under our WP:GNG guideline, in-depth coverage of the RL of the topic and goes to WP:GNG notability. Animal Planet is available to 93 million cable subscribers in the United States, and 70 countries around the world. Unscintillating (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets change the word part to role. From WP:NACTORS, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Looking at the significance of Todds part or role or appearance is entirely relevent when looking at Aussiepundit's spurious claim that Todd is notable as an Actor. Whale Wars is also (supposedly) a documentery series that follows around real people, not actors playing roles. So Todd's "appearence" on the show does not make him an actor. The show does not give in-depth coverage of Todd so does not go to WP:GNG notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "The show does not give in-depth coverage of Todd". That would be useful if you could provide evidence to that effect for each of the two episodes. Do you have such evidence? Unscintillating (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to note your below criticism about logical fallacy when looking at your request for evidence of absence. It actually should be the other way around. You claimed the episodes addresses the subject directly in detail (WP:GNG), you should be the one providing the evidence. But I'll bite. [67] has no mention of Todd. Whale Wars has no mention of Todd. On the Pirate to Prisoner episode he supposedly "acts" in: This episode recap makes no mention of Todd. This episode preview makes no mention of Todd. Blacklisted examiner /article/whale-wars-special-pete-bethune-pirate-to-prisoner and this announcements of what the episode is make no mention of Todd. this press release based piece which tells us the episode is a "special on Pete Bethune" and makes no mention of Todd. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a whaling expedition, this is a BLP. Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is some confusion about what I said, I'll repeat it. Whatever is contained in each of the appearances is, under our WP:GNG guideline, in-depth coverage of the RL of the topic and goes to WP:GNG notability. Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you found only showed an absence of information, they do not support the assertion that the "The show does not give in-depth coverage of Todd". The evidence we have at this point is that the RL of the topic received coverage in two episodes of the Animal Planet cable-TV show Whale Wars, but we don't know the extent of the coverage. Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the bio's page, if you look again you will notice that Pete Bethune does not have a bio there either, so the absence of a bio for the topic does not define notability. Unscintillating (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of a bio for Bethune does not make Todd notable. The lack of a bio is an indicator of the amount on significance the Animal Planet thought Todds role had. Bethune is otherwise notable. Todd is not. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't provide evidence about the basis for Animal Planet to provide bios, so it appears that all you have is an absence of evidence argument, which is a logical fallacy. See Evidence of absence#Absence of evidence and Absence of evidence. Unscintillating (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no logical fallacy, you are just reading more into my statement than is actually there. Proponents of Todd's notability need to provide evidence of such. Unless evidence can be shown he is notable the reverse position should be taken. The lack of bio is just another of multiple points where such evidence could reasonably guessed might exist but does not. WP:BEFORE asks us to check for information. Showing that lack helps show that a check has been made.
If Todd is the flea in the quad then he is not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Todd is not a flea in the sand. Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proponents of deletion have just as much responsibility to bring evidence to a discussion as do proponents of other positions. Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the lack of a bio from Animal Planet somehow says something about WP:N; the problem for Wikipedia is that the lack of a bio from a reliable source means that we don't have a source for the topic's birthdate. Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've not made a notability argument in this AfD, nor do I need to do so...we can't have articles being created about a topic held in limbo at the incubator, followed by bizarre frivolous AfDs on an article that should have been speedy deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Age and Borderchronicle are the exact same article, and only have a couple lines about Todd in a much larger article about another subject. They do not speak to notability. IMdB is considered a non-WP:RS for vetting notability. The Shorty award has two problems that make it not a proper source for notability. Being nominated for an award does not show notability. Winning it does. Secondly, it is a self-nomination, and hence primary. No notability there. As far as CNNi goes, whether it was written by Omar Todd or Sweeney Todd, it is still an unvetted blog and hence not WP:RS. WP:RS speaks directly about blogs on otherwise reliable newssites like CNN. Gtwfan52 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that this has already been deleted a couple of times, including the first AFD which I was the nominator. I don't see much changed since then. Salting may be needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It doesn't matter if I have made 100 edits or 1 edit, it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not Omar Todd is notable or whether or not I may express an opinion on this matter. Todd is not a director for Whale Wars. He may have had some involvement in founding the Wikileaks Party but as stated above by another user, that should be mentioned on the party's page at best. IMDb is not proving a credible source in relation to Todd's supposed starring on Whale Wars as I cannot find any other verification and he is not listed as a crew member on any of Sea Shepherd's campaign pages in which the crews featured on the show are profiled. Shorty Award nominations do not make a subject credible as they are self-submitted and anyone can apply. PixiePerilot (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nothing about deleting Omar Todd's article from Wikipedia is politically motivated and the fact that someone representing Omar Todd (AussiePundit) would come to Wikipedia and make this claim just goes to further prove that there are serious delusions of grandeur taking place. Todd is neither notable nor influential in politics and there is certainly no political agenda taking place at Wikipedia to have this profile removed and salted. If the subject were notable it would not be so difficult to find a source. Please note: The IMDb page for Omar Todd has captioned photos in first person, "X person and I," giving the impression that Omar Todd moderates that page. It's just not a credible source and this is becoming absolutely ridiculous. WP:SALT already. PixiePerilot (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BE and [68]. Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sources detailing Omar Todd are the Examiner and Digital Journal, both are non WP:RS as far as I know. HuffPo is not a vetted news item and Todd's mention is in passing in a submitted blog. HuffPo also offers no source to verify the claims made. IMDb is the only source validating an appearance on Whale Wars. Todd may have appeared but it seems his appearance was brief as I cannot find any information outside of IMDb and uploaded videos to YouTube do not obviously feature him in the episodes posted. There are two results for 'Omar Todd - Wikileaks', one being a brief mention on the independent party page and the second being an opinion he offered in a newspaper article about a larger topic. These things prove Omar Todd does exist but do not validate a need for a Wikipedia account. Not in the slightest. MattGunvalsson (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BE and [69]. Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC) — MattGunvalsson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Especially after reading this. It's not hard to see that not Omar Todd fails the requirements to meet Wikipedia notability. Delete and WP:SALT. <personal attack redacted by dennis brown> ~~DisorderInTheCourt (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC) DisorderInTheCourt (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BE and [70]. Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC) — DisorderInTheCourt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I've deleted that SPI case and redacted your personal attack here. While I have voted, it is pretty clear this would fall into an exemption. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[An edit posted here at 07:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC) has been removed as per Wikipedia is not a battleground and the AfD edit notice (reposted below). The edit remains viewable in the edit history at [71]. Unscintillating (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Delete - I vote to delete. The reason I am here because I was alerted to this situation by one of the Wikipedia members after Mr. Todd posted claims that he was doing my job on another site. (LinkedIn) I am William Shatner's Social Media Manager and Mr. Shatner was alerted to a claim made by Mr. Omar Todd on LinkedIn. Mr. Todd claimed that he assisted Mr. Shatner with Mr. Shatner's Social Media and helped him with his presence and with his charities, insinuating that he was Mr. Shatner's Social Media Manager. Mr. Shatner indicated to the person that alerted him that he did not know Mr. Todd and referred to me as his social media manager. Upon receiving the notification of the response by Mr. Shatner I did go and check out LinkedIn and discovered that Mr. Todd had made claims to that effect. Later in the day Mr. Todd apparently saw that his LinkedIn claims were being debated and went and removed Mr. Shatner's name. By this morning the verbiage had been changed again. Mr. Todd also attempted to contact me via LinkedIn mail and on Twitter asking to discuss the matter privately. Since the resume was a public document I chose to confront Mr. Todd publicly and get to the bottom of the situation on Twitter. What I found after a lengthy back and forth was that Mr. Todd had encountered Mr. Shatner at a Star Trek convention in London in October 2012. Mr. Todd engaged Mr. Shatner in a short conversation stating he was associated with the Sea Shepherd Organization. Mr. Shatner knew of the organization. Mr. Todd then claims that the conversation then turned to the matter of promoting Mr. Shatner on Social Media and according to Mr. Todd; Mr. Shatner agreed. In speaking today with Mr. Shatner I did find that Mr. Shatner did indeed know the founder of the Sea Shepherd organization many years ago. Mr. Shatner also acknowledged that he was approached by a fan while signing a photo at the convention who was from that organization. Mr. Shatner had no recollection of any offer to do social media promotion nor would he have accepted it. He would have referred the person to myself. That is exactly what has happened in the past; anyone who wants to do something with Mr. Shatner online is referred to me before any kind of commitment is made. I deal with everyone from Priceline, major studios to the March of Dimes in Canada when they want Mr. Shatner to do some social media. It is unlikely that Mr. Shatner would veer from that course for this organization. In doing searches online for Omar Todd and William Shatner I came across many references from Mr. Todd that align him with Mr. Shatner including an about.me page that also has the same quote from LinkedIn: "Celebrities – I’ve helped William Shatner, Richard Dean Anderson, Michelle Rodriguez, Daniel Baldwin, Eric Balfour and many others with social media for their personal presence and raise awareness for their charities." During my long Twitter argument today with Mr. Todd, he acknowledged he was creating positive posts by going on to Google plus and trying to cajole Mr. Shatner to join the cause. When I replied that all the posts he made about Mr. Shatner were basically about Mr. Shatner supporting his organization his reply to me was "please explain to me how a "positive" post like that doesn't do anyone any good? Look most would be pleased at that." So the fact that while he was creating positive posts to Mr. Shatner to join and follow his social media accounts online and supporting his organization that was his way of helping with Mr. Shatner's personal presence and raising awareness for his charity (which was the Sea Shepherd Organization which is not even on Mr. Shatner's list of supported charities that he fundraises for every year on www.horseshow.org/site/index.php/charities.html. It appears to be about Mr. Todd aligning himself with Mr. Shatner. Mr. Todd clearly misrepresented everything regarding Mr. Shatner. He has been blocked as far as I know from contacting Mr. Shatner. For proof of some of what I said you can go to: http://imgur.com/a/cKwL3. Please forgive any formatting issues. I'm not as much of an expert here nor do I have a page here. Please feel free to correct my format. Thank you.--ShatnersGuy (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)— ShatnersGuy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment All editors who post at AfD receive the following notice:

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the deletion discussion for the selected article. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive.

FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the above commentary from User:ShatnersGuy is intersting, I guess, it has absolutely no bearing on this discussion as it is just unsubstantiated claims from an editor whose only edit was his posting here. I find that rather suspect. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the article or any policy which it may or may not be deleted for. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I disagree that User:ShatnersGuy makes an unrelated point and that the claim is unsubstantiated. Here is the tweet thread in which Shatner denies knowing Todd. I think examples like these go to show, in great detail, that claims made by Omar Todd or anyone presumably representing him are completely exaggerated and are done so to try and establish false notability. Although there were no claims about William Shatner made on the Omar Todd page itself, the claim made on his social media accounts bares a stark resemblance to claims made on the page that are also untrue upon investigation. For example, Omar Todd is not in the episodes listed on the IMDb page and editors above have gone to great trouble to prove that. User:duffbeerforme has disproved the claims that Omar Todd is a featured cast member on Whale Wars and there is no evidence to prove that he even had a minor role. Let me put it this way: should every person, friend of a friend, or person appearing in the background of a reality show be given a Wikipedia page? Does this make them notable? Any associations with Wikileaks are minor in terms of Wikipedia notability and as suggested twice above, his association to the party shoud be listed on the Wikileaks Wikipedia page at best. Volunteer roles with charitable organisations do not show an express need for a Wikipedia account unless they are a celebrity representative, spokesperson or otherwise notable affiliation; Todd is simply not this. Furthermore, it is a tad convenient that the accounts creating a page for Omar Todd are all new and have made no edits outside of creating the page for Todd and all new pages created for Todd make the same claims in almost the same manner, as though they have been copied and pasted. Furthermore, I'd like to add that there are no reliable sources used to reference any of the information on this article that would indicate notability: HuffPost was a blog, not a news item and briefly mentioned Todd; the Examiner is blacklisted by Wikipedia as a reliable source; Digital Journal is much the same in terms of reliability. What exactly are the sources being used here? Are we debating this guys existence or his notability? He's a person, yes, but a notable person he is not. LouisStefanian (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Amending my post to add that, the thread in which William Shatner denies knowing Todd is from Shatner's verified account, which therefore substantiates or further disproves another claim about Omar Todd. LouisStefanian (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BE and [72]. Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC) — LouisStefanian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

METRIC[edit]

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

Article about a mathematical model in hydrology. No references and no notability claimed. There are very many models around and there is no evidence given that this one deserves special mention. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are not that many hydrological models included in Wikipedia. This is actually the only one which deals with the mapping of evapotranspiration. If there is any other solving the same problem which has a higher notability, this one could be deleted. But I see no point in deleting an article which deals with a problem which is not covered by other wikipedia articles. Afil (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd care to point out others with the same issues, I'll be happy to deal with them. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources, as required by the WP:GNG. If extra sources are added to the article, feel feel to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep presented and/or cited in many reliable academic sources: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78] are just among the first results in Gscholar. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the first results in Gscholar" is not enough. Wikipedia articles require independent in-depth coverage in secondary sources (which in this case boils down to review articles and text books). Textual search hits is not enough, see WP:GHITS. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, have you seen the hits? I've linked them above. I mentioned Gscholar just to notice that it was fairly easy to find them, not just to count hits. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:56, 24 June 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GBD Public Diplomacy & Culture Exchange Center[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted via Speedy, so I am opening an AfD. At this time it has nothing and only citations are from wikipedia. Tyros1972 Talk 06:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've disentangled the various links to try to see what could provide references. As it stands though, all I am seeing is a centre run by a society for retired officials (itself non-notable) which organises social occasions? This seems to fall far short of WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:45, 24 June 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manish harishankar[edit]

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

Startup movie director; no notable movies yet. smileguy91^talk 14:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications this person meets WP:ARTIST, WP:BIO or WP:GNG yet. In the future, perhaps, but not yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a check for refs. I removed a speedy tag--it isn't in my opinion that obvious. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please visit Wikipedia pages Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani Chaarfutiya Chhokarealso lots of credential articles when you google 'Manish Harishankar'. His short-film 'A life in Mumbai' got official selection in Chicago Short Film Festival - 2007 Awards. http://www.mamut.net/shortfilmfestivals/newsdet12.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampatgosavi (talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Y not? 19:52, 3 July 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 Enterprise architecture#Developing an Enterprise Level Architectural Description. with no prejudice against recreating the article if sufficient content and sources can be found. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artifact (enterprise architecture)[edit]

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

Article has been deleted previously for same I am proposing. A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): Essay, original research, no independent sources) Tyros1972 Talk 08:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Essentially a WP:DICDEF (and sadly, one I use myself, but that's my problem) appropriate for addition to Wiktionary? AllyD (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing section at Enterprise_architecture#Developing_an_Enterprise_Level_Architectural_Description covers the context in which the term is used; possibly a CSD A10 for this new article? AllyD (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Enterprise_architecture#Developing_an_Enterprise_Level_Architectural_Description that covers the same topic. Cavarrone 20:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or expand. There are sufficient sources for this to be a stand-alone article, but as long as it has no more contents that the suggested redirect target, no reason not to redirect. The deletion rationale (A7) was incorrect at the time of the speedy, and is still incorrect now, it doesn't fall in any of the suggested groups. Note that e.g. this book, An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture by Scott A. Bernard, has a complete chapter on "Components and Artifacts", so it is a real and notable aspect of enterprise architecture, and should not be deleted for lack of notability. Fram (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking over the refs it is clear that this could easily be expanded into a full article. Only problem that I see is that the original author didn't mark it as a stub. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Enterprise_architecture#Developing_an_Enterprise_Level_Architectural_Description. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:43, 24 June 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. L Faraone 04:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Thomas Scott[edit]

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

Non-notable producer/director lacking sufficient secondary support. Article references are primary in nature, written by the article subject about himself, or are only single line mentions of the article subject. reddogsix (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jason Thomas Scott matches the criteria as a notable television producer under Wikipedia's policy regarding notability: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Wikipedia:Notability

Additional sources have been added

Jason Thomas Scott is a widely recognized contribution to modern television production. Several independent and approved sources, including the Denver Post, Yahoo!, and IMDB (for filmography purposes) have been added to the page to prove notability and verification. Additionally, Scott's active membership and involvement with the Producers Guild of America [[79]] has been added to the article with a source directly to the PGA's official magazine mentioning his membership^[1]. (talk) --Jss1857 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not see significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'; no significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable source have been found regarding the subject of this AfD, therefore the subject does not appear to have received sufficient coverage in those reliable sources to be considered notable per WP:GNG. Furthermore, the subject does not appear to meet any of the notability requirements set forth in WP:CREATIVE. Therefore, failing these notability definitions, I am supporting deletion of this article. I am not opposed to recreation of the article if sufficient significant coverage is later found.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:50, 25 June 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) 18:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myon & Shane 54[edit]

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

-6/20/13 addition: As an avid electronic dance music fan, I will have to contend that Myon & Shane 54 are actually quite notable. A visit to their facebook page [80] shows over 125,000 likes, and they are booked on many large EDM festivals, as can be revealed with a simple search. They have over 150 episodes of their podcast "International Departures" released, and a wide fan base. They are featured on Beatport [81] and have received acclaim from many famous and notable DJs, including Armin Van Buuren (http://www.astateoftrance.com/news/artist-interview-dj-shoutout-myon-shane54/).

-Non-notable DJ group. There's an interview here, but that's it - i found this but it appears to be user-submitted. I couldn't find anything else that looked reliable. They may fail WP:NMUSIC as well - perhaps they are more notable in Hungarian and there is some search term I'm missing, I don't know. TKK ^{bark !} 18:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking the in-depth coverage in independent sources. Interview-based articles are not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:24, 24 June 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. The contention here is whether this list violates WP:NOT, and whether it could be considered as allowable per WP:LISTN. With equal arguments on both sides (and some vagueness - saying that the article does or does not violate WP:NOT without specific examples from the article isn't very helpful), I can only close this as no consensus ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of 802.15.4 radio modules[edit]

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)).

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

This 'comparison' is really just a list of external links to suppliers / vendors of these devices. I'd just remove the links per WP:ELNO point 14, but there wouldn't be much of value left, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT for product listings. Not a single one of the devices is notable, and the concept in general is already well covered at IEEE 802.15.4. All sources are to vendors, as well. I've looked and I don't see any comparisons such as this in independent sourcing that could be used instead. This should be deleted for lack of independent sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:LINKFARM, WP:ELNO, and as a spamfarm presented as an encyclopedic "comparison". If a standard cleanup would remove the entire contents of an article then it's usually best to delete the article. Them From Space 15:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Point. Objectively, a cleanup which removes vender specific links (e.g. brochure, datasheet, or factsheet) would leave a substantial majority of information in place. As an estimate, for each 2 brochure/datasheet/factsheet links there are about 11 other key features provided. Basically, removal of the brochure/datasheet/factsheet links would leave about 85% of the information. And, I do find the remaining 85% to be key features of many notable solid state implementations of a substantial international wireless standard. H.huff (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC) — H.huff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep As a user of IEEE 802.15.4 radio modules I find the page to be very useful. I've been working on cleaning up the page, especially deleting the modules that are not manufactured. If the point is to remove all lists, wouldn't these pages have been deleted too?
List_of_microprocessors
List_of_instruction_sets
List_of_common_microcontrollers
Comparison_of_Linux_distributions
List_of_content_management_systems

The Comparison of IEEE 802.15.4 modules page is quite useful to us embedded developers, as it's the only place where you can see all the modules out there at a glance. If it remains I will go through and remove the modules that are EOL'd. Smithderek2000 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Smithderek2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep People that understand and are into this sort of thing find it useful. No different than other such lists, other than this is perhaps a less known thing. Comparison list that help understand things are commonly accepted on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 01:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LINKFARM and WP:ELNO. If the editors of this table what to build something like this, they need to start by writing articles on the things being listed, which would require them to be notable, which looks pretty doubtful to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cleanup. Actually, I agree with the first part "If the editors of this table want to build something like this, they need to start by ...". The editors of this page need guidance. The redirect thought is that this page should be marked for cleanup with guidance.H.huff (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you are an engineer you will know this article is very useful (getting the information contained would otherwise take hundreds of hours of effort), verifiable (verifiability is why the article links to source datasheets) and written from a neutral point of view (no opinions are expressed only factual data). AfD notes - 'Lists are generally kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction.' - and this page is all these. I propose we follow the suggestion by Smithderek2000 and remove modules that are EOL'd. And also remove links to vendors in the Manufacturers columns and the firmware options column -- however the datasheet links are necessary to ensure verifiability as outlined above Damonrand (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC) — Damonrand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
A phone book is also a list of useful information that is difficult to compile, but we don't include lists of phone numbers because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. - MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, this article is not just a list of pointers, it is a table with multiple columns of data for each entry. You may not find it notable because it is not your field of interest but there are plenty of lists in Wikipedia that are useful to specialists in a particular very obscure field, this article should be classed no differently than List_of_web_resources_for_visualizing_molecular_dynamics. Damonrand (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:LINKFARM and WP:ELNO. The topic's obscurity doesn't save this article from pretty clear WP:NOT issues. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other lists I mentioned? List_of_content_management_systems, List_of_microprocessors, etc? The Comparison of 802.15.4 modules at least has comparative information on the merits of the various modules. 12.228.222.229 (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Content management systems and Microprocessors are both notable topics, and the individual items on those lists are also notable. That is a substantial difference. I do see the point you're trying to make -- both of those lists also include links to specific products. The difference is that those links are to Wikipedia articles, not vendor/manufacturer sites (which is problematic per WP:ELNO. And that won't change until/unless any of those individual products become notable which, as someone previously speculated, is unlikely to occur. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a embedded device developer I can tell that this list is extremely valuable. I looked around and I couldn't find something similar. I thought Wikipedia is about providing knowledge to help people and this list helped me a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.102.194 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC) — 88.217.102.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As well-intentioned as your argument is, your argument actually appears on our list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions list. While the usefulness of an article is an excellent quality to have, Wikipedia -- for better or worse -- relies on other factors, such as notability, when determining what to cover. Further, I would be very surprised to learn that there is literally no other source for comparing radios such as this. Indeed, if that were the case that would actually be a very strong argument in favor of deletion! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Cleanup Keep and clean up this article to be an encyclopedic presentation as the notable solid state implementations of the international wireless standard IEEE 802.15.4. My observations are ...

1. Information Content. If the vendor links (which appear to be the "spam link" concern) are removed from the comparison table, this comparison would still retain the majority of it's useful information: MCU core, RAM, Flash, Antenna, Sleep, TX, RX, Power, Sensitivity, etc. This table contains substantial information independent the various links.

2. Verifiable Sources. While the datasheets *do*not* belong an encyclopedic article body... the datasheets *are* clearly professional, verifiable sources of information.

3. Neutral POV. This article has a neutral point of view. The article does not advocate for any particular entry of information.

4. Notability. Solid state chips requires fabrication resources beyond the reach of most garage hobbyists; as such, noteworthy solid state instantiations are typically produced by entities with sufficient resources such as companies. In this case, the article summarizes key features for noteworthy solid state instantiations of the international open wireless standard IEEE 802.15.4. IEEE is one of the largest and most notable international, non-profit, professional engineering organization and recognized standards organizations. Basically, this article summarizes the noteworthy solid state implementations of a noteworthy open wireless communication standard.

Again, my recommendation is to keep and clean up this article to be an encyclopedic presentation as a high quality, neutral information of the noteworthy solid state implementations of the noteworthy international wireless standard IEEE 802.15.4. ... similar to other highly valued comparison "encyclopedic" tables in Wikipedia. H.huff (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC) — H.huff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you can demonstrate that this specific sub-topic of IEEE standards -- that of 802.15.4 radio modules -- is independently notable (which is entirely about coverage in third party sources, not about much of what you describe above -- and please don't take that as harsh, I see where you're coming from I think), then I probably agree with you. But that would require a near total reworking of the current article, from the ground up. Most of the concerns being raised here are about the way the article is fundamentally conceived and structured. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article needs rewriting. Please see if the addition information below meets your independently notable concern. H.huff (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry if I have difficulties to work with the argumentation frame requested by English Wikipedia deletion policies (other languages are not so self destructing). I already saw how "JSPWiki" has been destroyed shamelessly so I react here and now before it is too late. This page has been extremely useful for me and encouragements to continuously upgrade it would be a lot more useful than discussions about "Should it be there?". Lists are useful when they are not too biassed, rather exhaustive, givig good identification for each elements (with links toward further info) and proposing discriminating criteria between elements. All this is present here and should remain to be continuously improved. For instance, WirelessHART and ISA100.11a modules should be added as the list is too dominated by ZigBee as of today. Deletion would just let all Internet Of Things learners (and they are many) in the dust Christophe Dupriez (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)— Christophe Dupriez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

802.15.4 radio modules, independent notability As requested by ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb, below are on some "independent notability" observations specific to 802.15.4 radio modules:

1. "primordial" independent notability. Generally, for a standard to be notable, some implementations must exist. At the most basic and fundamental level, these radio modules (solid state devices) are initial 3rd parties that helped establish 802.15.4 as a notable standard.

2. "tacet" independent notability. Many people are unaware of the many millions of 802.15.4 radio modules already deployed. Annual 802.15.4 radio module shipments were 15 million in 2008 and projected to be around 500 million in 2014. (reuters) (zdnet) These 802.15.4 radio modules are less visible to people than iPhone or Android because the 802.15.4 radio modules are embedded in infrastructure projects like smart parking, environmental monitoring, smart grid/power management, smart commercial buildings, factory automations, and connecting health care devices. Libelium World has a case study in Smart Parking and Environmental Monitoring. Note: Libelium is a 3rd party user of 802.15.4 radio modules. Digi provides various cases where 802.15.4 radio modules are used ... in places where most people are unaware of the 802.15.4 radio module. See also the Digi Learning Center

So, there is a large population segment affected by, yet unaware of, 802.15.4 radio modules in the infrastructure. Ironically, the more effectively 802.15.4 radio modules are placed in the infrastructure, the less people notice ... which creates a substantial, but silent third party.

3. "expressed" independent notability. What follows is a limited sampling of independent 3rd parties which expressly discuss 802.15.4 radio modules in the context of technical parameters, test measurement, how-tos, news, academic articles, conference meetings, online publications, blogs, etc...

BLOG

University

Multi-University Consortium NCAR Earth Observing Laboratory has session presentation (Day1, Section 3) which includes 802.15.4 radio particulars.
Cornell University Library : IEEE 802.15.4 transceiver for the 868/915 MHz band using Software Defined Radio

Online Publications

High Frequency Electronics : Single-Chip Transceiver Makes it Easy to Design ZigBee/802.15.4 Products

EE Times : search on "802.15.4 radio modules"
EE Herald : ZigBee Light Link Standard Demonstration

M2M Wire : 802.15.4 search results (search results ... mostly about 802.15.4 radio devices, not the standard specification)

ECN (Since 1956) : Single-Chip Wireless MCUs Address IEEE 802.15.4

Sensors — Open Access Journal : Modeling of Current Consumption in 802.15.4/ZigBee Sensor Motes

Press Release Channels

Misc. Articles

Mathworks : EVM Measurements for a 802.15.4 (ZigBee) System

Books (one can search Amazon or Google books for more)

Hands-On ZigBee: Implementing 802.15.4 with Microcontrollers

Forum Discussion

Stack Overflow : zigbee hardware in mobile phone

--- H.huff (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided a bunch of good sources for an article about 802.15.4, but we have a different article on that, at IEEE 802.15.4. That article is not the subject of this deletion discussion. This discussion is about whether we ought to have a 'comparison' which is really just a product listing. Per WP:NOT, we shouldn't. - MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think, MrOllie's comments miss some points worth considering ...

WP:NOT Compliance. The 802.15.4 radio module comparison is compliant with WP:NOT comparison guidelines in that no prices are listed. (I reviewed all instances of compar* in WP:NOT) The module comparison is compliant with the WP:NOT guideline to not have collection of product announcements and rumors. (The comparison is of existing products, not announcements or rumors.) The 802.15.4 radio module comparison is compliant with WP:NOT statement that information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style. (I do not see any favorites or biases in the comparison.)
Separate Topics. IEEE 802.15.4 is a Technical standard. A 802.15.4 compliant radio module is an Electronic component. A technical standard specification and a physical device are not the same thing. One exists as a Technical standard document which, in this case, specifies protocol architecture, network model, and data transport architecture . The other exists as physical Electronic component devices which, in this case, has key features such as antenna, transmit power, physical size, interface, memory, and sensitivity ... these physical characteristics not constrained by this IEEE technical standard. From the above source titles alone, one can see keywords like "single-chip", "chip comparison" and "size comparison" that are focused on Electronic components and not the Technical standard. About 85% of the comparison information is about key physical device features such as antenna, transmit power, physical size, interface, memory, and sensitivity which are not part of the IEEE 802.15.4 Technical standard.

Again, a reasonable path forward is that 802.15.4 radio module comparison be recognized as a separate topic from the IEEE standard; and, that the 802.15.4 radio module comparison be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia guidelines similar to other Wikipedia examples like List of computer-aided design editors -- H.huff (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer-aided design editors says 'If the software you are about to add does not have it's own page established for some time on wikipedia it will be removed from this list.' If we follow that standard on Comparison of 802.15.4 radio modules there would be no list entries. - MrOllie (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer-aided design editors does not have the statement 'If the software ... does not have it's own page ... it will be removed from this list.' (Also, this statement does not appear in WP:NOT) However, the List of computer-aided design editors edit tab does state 'Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone'

... still, I do see still merit to the point that the article has many verifiable sources not properly footnoted as references and is weak in cross referencing Wikipedia pages.

... there are existing Wikipedia pages that the article does reference. For example, Microchip Technology, Atmel, ARM Cortex-M3, Panasonic, HC08, Digi International, 32-bit ARM7 Crossbow Technology

... there are also some existing Wikipedia pages, that the article could reference, that could replace external links used in the article. For example, XBee, ZigBee, MiWi

... as such, the page needs proper diligence in clean-up which is more than just quick, naive deletions.

Why not give the editors/maintainers of this page a chance to bring the page up to Wikipedia standards? ... and then revisit -- H.huff (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is in an edit comment. View the source of the page (or try to edit it) and you will see it. The 'editors/maintainers of this page' have had just over four years to bring this page up to Wikipedia standards. - MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify "give a chance", I was thinking of "give a chance with a clear notice/guidance in the article" of what needs to be corrected. History does not show this guidance being provided in article. History does show approximately 15 editor diligently updating (likely to their understanding of guidelines). I would like to believe that the editors of this topic, with express guidance, would responsive positively going forward. Is it not worthwhile to the Wikipedia community to mentor editors making well-intentioned contributions with unintentional mistakes? H.huff (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a technical manual. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Others have referred to this article as a list or comparison. Also, with proper review, one can see that the 802.15.4 radio module comparison does not fit under any of the nine " Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook or scientific journal" cases. By what metric do you,The Mysterious El Willstro, consider this article instead a Manual? -- H.huff (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply "List of radio modules" would suffice as a list. A list of 802.15.4 radio modules, where the number denotes what most non-technician people would already consider a specific type of radio module, and then we're getting even more knitty-gritty within that; this is beyond what most of the general public would find to be a useful list. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I would agree that articles should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the particular topic's field. If introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article were added in plain terms so that the concepts can be understood by a literate reader... as recommended by the Wikipedia guidelines ... would you consider this acceptable? I'm thinking of Polymer and List of synthetic polymers as an example which bridge's understanding for a literate reader to a specific topic of solid (but not expert) technical depth. H.huff (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. Actually make the edits you're talking about, and then we'll see what they look like. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 13:37, 4 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology used in the Hanbali Madhab[edit]

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

Its all original research Pass a Method talk 08:28, 10 June 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 June 10. Snotbot t • c » 08:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fact that the article is entirely composed of original research is not necessarily a reason to delete, as there may be a possibility for the article to be improved. The question is whether or not it can be improved with secondary research. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as titled, it implies a glossary, which violates WP:LIST and WP:NOT. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to be pushing a certain point of view. There are no sources cited. Also a discussion of terminology in Arabic is probably beyond the scope of English WP. BayShrimp (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. There is no need for voters to find secondary research unless they want to edit the article themselves. Otherwise, it is an unsourced article. SL93 (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius (Jakobs)[edit]

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

Non-notable Bishop with no sources provided. I could not find any to establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've cleaned the article up a bit and added the couple of references I could find quickly - those about his 2009 85th birthday and the publication of his autobiography; both of which were covered by national media. The guy is metropolitan bishop of the Estonian capital Tallinn. He might pass on the basis of WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES if he didn't pass on the basis of WP:GNG (which I think he probably does). Obviously a case of WP:NOENG given most of the sources are in Russian or Estonian, so the nom should be forgiven for any issues with WP:BEFORE. Stalwart111 04:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised his position makes him the highest ranked Orthodox Christian in Estonia; responsible for all of Estonia's 140,000+ Orthodox Christians, not just those in Tallinn. Not a WP:BIGNUMBER argument, I just misunderstood the role. Stalwart111 04:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've just added a few sources, fixed some dates and info and added some sub-headings. I'll leave this for others to consider but I really don't think there's a non-notable case anymore. Stalwart111 05:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable? He is the head of self-governing church. There are many sources, but its are mostly in Russian and Estonian. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Non-notable Bishop" was always going to be a big call. Stalwart111 07:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Head of the largest Orthodox Church in Estonia. Plenty of sources, though mostly not in English. Clearly notable. -- 202.124.89.4 (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely notable as the coverage shows. SL93 (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am surprised to see this article nominated here. The man's notability cannot be in doubt, given his status in both Estonia and the Russian Orthodox Church. Ample coverage with reliable sources.--Zananiri (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course keep -- A Metrpolitan is similar to an archbishop, and we are not dealing with a fringe denomination, with a self-appointed archbishop. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go (verb)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY Ypnypn (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it's a word. But it's a very important word which most of us use every day. Also the article gives some history which takes it beyond a mere dictionary definition. BayShrimp (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this word is of interest because of its suppletive forms; the information in the article goes beyond what you'd find in a dictionary (e.g. in Wiktionary), so value would certainly be lost if it were to be deleted. Victor Yus (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please closely read WP:NOTDIC (and wikt:WT:NOT) before nomming based on that policy. –Quiddity (talk) 18:09, 24 June 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) czar · · 05:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Boss[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article deleted twice in the past, and I see nothing that's changed regarding coverage of this individual. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This conspiracy theorist fails the WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN tests and has never been elected to any major office nor received any press coverage within the state of New Jersey other than mentions in a few editorials. This article should also be banned from re-creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155blue (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the second nomination appears as a no consensus at least. Boss has been the primary subject of [82], [83], [84], [85], [86] major media reports (two of which were published since the last nomination). And since that nomination, he appeared on the 2012 presidential election ballot in NJ and received over 1,000 votes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's been covered by reliable and verifiable sources that are about him and that establish his notability. Do we really want to delete an article for someone who ran for President of the United States and appeared on the ballot in New Jersey under "NSA Did 9/11" and just convince him further as to how deep the conspiracy runs? Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source for that, can you add it to the article? Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per William S. Saturn & Alansohn. It should be noted that the trend in recent years has been to recognize presidential candidates attaining ballot status as notable. Plus he has received coverage in RS's for his conspiracy theories as well as for his campaigns.--JayJasper (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable by virtue of being a ballot qualified presidential candidate and for being the main subject of media coverage in multiple reliable sources.--Cjv110ma (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As discussed above, he has received quite a lot of coverage over the years - the constant attempts to delete the Jeff Boss page seem based not in Wikipedia policy, but in a distaste for Mr. Boss's POV HerbertMMarx (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but remove "conspiracy theorist" as inflammatory POV. I disagree with him, but dang, you may as well say "Jeff Boss is a whacko running for POTUS". May be true, but a form of poisoning the well. -- 67.183.113.3 (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG.--TM 11:51, 27 June 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--Ymblanter (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EquiStar Group[edit]

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

I found no coverage in multiple searches. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk) @ 22:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (whisper) @ 22:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty out there on Equistar Chemicals but nothing notable on this Equistar Group real-estate company, so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 09:50, 27 June 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. L Faraone 04:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Students Circle Network[edit]

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

This organization appears to be defunct. It was probably never a notable organization. It has passed with barely a ripple. This page has not been tended by anyone knowledgeable of its fate and so gives the false impression that the organization is still in operation. This page should be taken down or edited to show that the organization is no longer in operation and discuss its fate. Thomasbhiggins (talk) 17:14, 8 June 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 June 8. Snotbot t • c » 18:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment that a project is dead does not show it was not notable., tho it is relevant to the possibility of further sourcing. However, we can't say it is defunct without a source to prove it. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Defunct or not, it doesn't appear to have been notable, or even to have gotten off the ground at all. Official site leads to a parked domain. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This "keep" recommendation is not meant to imply that I think this organization is notable -- I have no particular opinion about that. But, on the other hand, I don't believe that the organization is "defunct" or that its web site is a "parked domain". As seen at [87], [88], and [89], the web site appears to be active, or at least still in existence. I don't think this article ought to be deleted based on a mistaken premise. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:43, 24 June 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.