< 26 May	28 May >

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 Relationship marketing. (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R-commerce[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Neologism. I put this up for AfD last time and was closed because someone tagged it with G11 and it was deleted. Now it has been recreated. Don't tag it please, or else it will just get recreated. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I speedied this last time out Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I did a quick search, and R-commerce shows up in a few credible places:

A full chapter in Advanced Selling for Dummies Publisher: Wiley (legitimate)
A full chapter in 49 Marketing Secrets That Work to Grow Sales Publisher: Morgan James (quasi-vanity publisher?)
definition/article on Techopedia

R-commerce appears to be a minor buzzword of doubtful notability. The writing in the article is currently poor, but it seems like an attempt to summarize the main writings about the concept, not an attempt to promote a specific author. On the other hand, from my brief look at the sources, there doesn't seem to be much substance to the concept. Its leading advocate says (on http://www.earlytorise.com/marketing-lessons-from-politics/, a blacklisted page) that it's a synonym for Relationship marketing, so it might be most useful to readers to just redirect to that article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Redirect option sounds good, keeping the placeholder in case it becomes more widely used. I do not think "Techopedia" is the best source either! Not sure a poison is needed (yet) unless someone is trying to sell their web site or book etc. W Nowicki (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems the best option for this neologism until it gets picked up in academia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 2 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 on a notability level, without prejudice to the resolution of copyright issues -- Y not? 19:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stepladder technique[edit]

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

Deprodded with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL rationales. While there are sources, I see no way this can be anything more than a dicdef and OR. The only sources I found used the term in passing at best. Google gives only 295 unique results; between this and the fact that the article has been orphaned since 2006, it's clear that this is not a very notable, widespread term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - this pedagogy technique is used in the classroom. I'm sure there's easily accessible scholarship on the topic. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be useful and valid subject worthy of note; moving away from Rogelburg's for secondary sources needs to be done, but the problems are fixable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Basically per the nominator of the article: there are sources, and this is all we need to keep the article. AfD is not cleanup. This thing needs improvement, not deletion. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement with what? As I said, there are sources, but all they do is give a WP:DICDEF. Tell me how this is not just a dictionary entry, or how it's supposedly so damn notable if it's had zero incoming links since 2006. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we suddenly need incoming links for notability? I may have missed something about the notability guidelines? About the sources, I see four academic papers listed: I can't access them, but it seems fairly obvious it can be expanded if you have access to these. And the article is much longer than a dicdef already. Are we reading the same article? --Cyclopia ^talk 09:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also your googling skills seem to be surprisingly lacking. Here is a full PDF of an academic paper on the subject. So much for "dicdef". It took me literally 10 seconds to find it (first result on Gscholar). Are you kidding me? WP:AGF has limits. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am on the fence as far as notoriety, since the works cited are not very influential and no other work in the Scholar search or similar searches does better. On the other hand, this article has a serious WP:COPYVIO problem. For instance, the paragraph that starts with "Performance gains associated with the stepladder technique have been documented..." is straight out of page 995 of the Rogelberg et al. (2002) paper. I also have to wonder about the licensing claim supporting Figure 1, since that figure is essentially a copy of Figure 1, page 83 in the Rogelberg and O'Conner (1998) paper, which states "Copyright 1998 by the Educational Publishing Foundation". Hopefully a more experienced editor can advise how to proceed. But, as far as this AfD, once the copyvio is taken care of I wonder how much of an article will be left.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I posted at [the Copyright Problems talk page] to elicit advice on how to deal with the copyvio while the article is under AfD consideration.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:21, 4 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) 15:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Nana[edit]

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

Ganesh Nana is a poorly-done copy and paste job from a publicity profile from this person's employer. This person is not a "leading economist", and I'm not even sure what it means to be renowned for "his work with numbers". At the moment, this reads like a promotional page for a fairly obscure consultant. If this page is kept, I think it needs to be substantially trimmed and changed. Opusinter (talk) 22:03, 27 May 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 May 27. Snotbot t • c » 22:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (orate) @ 22:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But "work with numbers" is priceless. Ray^Talk 13:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no credible assertion, and some really smarmy praise. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's a pretty poor article, but he seems to be notable to me. I see him on TV all the time. If you google him, he gets quoted in the news frequently; latest item that I saw (looked for a couple of minutes) was four days ago. Deleting the article doesn't seem the right thing to do. Schwede 66 18:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many bit players who are interviewed on the news frequently. Each big bank or consulting firm has a couple of media faces who frequently appear on the nightly news and in papers. An example is somebody like Shamubeel Eaqub. But this doesn't make them notable. If the article is kept, it must be made much shorter. There's certainly no evidence, besides his own publicity profile, to suggest he is a leading economist who has made important contributions to economics. And I say this as a professional economist from New Zealand. Opusinter (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional. Even if the subject is notable for some reason, the article would have to be rewritten from scratch. WP:G11 says to delete "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a regular provider of media commentary on economics in New Zealand. I have very roughly hacked at the article in a vague attempt at despamming it; further pruning and replacement with better quality info would be welcomed. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the big improvement, Daveosaurus. If you can find some independent sources that say something substantial about him, I'll change my vote. The one on the page now is by his employer, so it's not independent. I did a quick search of Google News Archive, and saw only quotes from him but nothing about him. A similar search on Google Books turns up a bunch of things he's written, and some mentions in the acknowledgements of books, but nothing that struck me as clearly meeting notability guidelines. If you find some clear-cut sources that establish notability, would you please post them on the talk page and leave a note here? That would sway my opinion and probably other editors', too. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not a notable person. I did not find any reliable sources, which shows his notability. Strongly recommend deletion for the page. Jussychoulex (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why "speedy"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major writer and media commentary for economics in New Zealand; he's no Charles Krauthammer, but does seem to be a recognized expert and active in mainstream news reporting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. As for WP:ECONOMIST/WP:JOURNALIST, looks short too. I could be convinced otherwise by links or evidence of repeated/major media exposure.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:32, 4 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) 15:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of pundits[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

'Pundit' is excessively vague and ill-defined. These lists may as well be titled 'list of prominent media figures' or 'list of people who frequently appear on TV', which shows how arbitrary it is. Previously kept at AFD in 2009, but with the suggestion that it should be renamed to a more precise title. That hasn't happened. I admit something like List of political pundits would be slightly more workable, but most of the same problems with vagueness would remain. Robofish (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, these lists also possibly raise BLP issues, as pundit may be considered a slightly derogatory term, and many of the entries on these lists aren't even sourced. Robofish (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it may be derogatory in England. In America, it is not, nor apparently anywhere else. Are they not known as pundits in England though? If there is another word seen as more polite to cause them, then where the English are listed, use that word instead. Dream Focus 21:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not derogatory in England either. The OED has it as "In extended use: an expert in a particular subject or field, esp. one frequently called upon to give his or her opinion to the public; a commentator, a critic." Warden (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more normal to refer to political pundits as "commentators" in the here UK but this is the first time I've heard the claim that "pundit" is derogatory. Dricherby (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is a twofer as it involves List of pundits and List of pundits in the United States. Is that following policy? Crtew (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination offers no new evidence - just some vague musing about the title. But title changes are made using the move function, not the delete function. The topic is clearly notable as it only takes a moment to find a complete book on the subject: The Political Pundits. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man argument. I can find telephone books all over the place, but does that support: List of people in the telephone book...ahem, no. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is the straw man as the work I cite is not a directory. Here's some description to give a feel for it and its relevance: "The Political Pundits surveys in detail the small, elite group of persons who comment on and analyze politics in newspapers and newsmagazines, on radio and television, through lectures, books, and all other forms of political media. Dan Nimmo and James E. Combs discuss the key political role pundits play, their methods and strategies ... In Part One, the discussion focuses on four generic types of pundits: Priests, Bards, Sages, and Oracles. Part Two identifies three pundit roles: as technicians, as members of the Chattering Class, and as media critics. Each chapter provides examples, cases, and profiles to demonstrate the dominance of punditry. ..."

there is no evidence that such a definition and application is generally or even widely used. So the list would need to be renamed List of pundits as defined by James E. Combs. That's not really workable, either.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book is evidence. It's a respectable book from a respectable publisher — part of the Praeger Series on Political Communication. It is exactly what we look for as a reliable source. And there are plenty more such as the Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections which demonstrates the encyclopedic nature of the topic. Where are your reliable sources? You and the other naysayers just seem to be giving us your personal opinions. Warden (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both list articles are fine. It list people with their own Wikipedia articles, all known for the same thing, and list information about them. Dream Focus 21:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This list is terrible. Narrowing scope to "political pundits" and renaming accordingly might be a good start, but the non-progress since last AfD (in 2009) suggests no one wants to take care of this list. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but delete those that aren't properly sourced. Forbes published its own list of American pundits.[1] The Wall Street Journal is keeping track of their prediction success rate.[2] It may need to be split into sections, though: politics, sports, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a disgusting article that looks like it's read the definition of "NPOV" and has set out to violate it as thoroughly as possible. Of the 33 folks it accuses of being a pundit, it sources 2 of them - about 6% of them. And it's downright slanderous - if someone called me a pundit they'd promptly be sloshed around the chops. Get rid of those which cannot be sourced, and then we can think about whether we require an article on it.--Laun chba ller 22:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you do know that 'NPOV' stands for 'Neutral Point of View', right? It's not a synonym for 'biased' or 'indiscriminate'; rather the reverse. AlexTiefling (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did know. I personally take 'pundit' as being very offensive, so for me, this is mass-slander.--Laun chba ller 09:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm now more awake, and have read your objection more clearly. I agree that this article is very far from NPOV. However, I've never encountered this suggestion that pundit is 'very offensive' anywhere outside WP talk pages. What's your basis for this belief, if you don't mind my asking? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me, 'pundit' gives the impression of someone giving their opinion. It's not really that it smacks of being offensive, it's that every other word that could be used instead has expert undertones. Use of it - to me, at least - means either one of two things: either you are too lazy to think of another word (in which case bugger off and go take an English class!) or you are making every effort to avoid it, which I would find incredibly insulting.--Laun chba ller 11:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (yak) @ 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (rap) @ 22:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete "pundit" is far too vague: are you a pundit if you appear on a talk show once? if one source calls you a "pundit", once? the fact that in three years since the previous AfD ended in a rename no one has been able to or been willing to follow that consensus is evidence that it is an unworkable premise, and since both the articles involve living people, keeping the lists based on the unworkable premise is unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & TRPoD. "Pundit" is way too vague & ill-defined a term to be the basis of an encyclopedic list.--JayJasper (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inclusion criteria cannot be defined. One is either a physician or not, one is either a news anchor or not. a pundit is variously defined, with no common definition available. A narrow definition could be the basis for a list, IF such a definition was agreed on. the word means too many things.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The meaning of the term is not clear. It's equally unclear that this could be fixed by renaming, since it's not self-evident that there's any commonality between the people on the list, which could be adequately addressed by a new name. And as I (and others) remarked last time this was debated: if a list of pundits doesn't have Nehru, what use is it? In short, this is an indiscriminate collection of stuff, and of no encyclopedic value. AlexTiefling (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary [3] declares pundit as "3: a person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner usually through the mass media : critic". So calling them "political pundits" would clarify what they are. Dream Focus 06:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems: (1) At least some of these people are sports critics, not political figures at all; (2) There are still no sources, nor is it apparent that such a definition can be sufficiently well sourced. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't problems. (1) They can, as I have suggested, be separated into different sections (or lists), and (2) there is no lack of sources, merely the effort needed to incorporate them in the list; in addition to Forbes and the WSJ, Newsweek, Washington Post, and Star Tribune all name some names, especially the Post. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep and possible Rename to List of political commentators (which now redirects into Pundit). I call for a speedy keep as no policy is referred to in the initial nomination. It's a keeper as the entry satisfies the four criteria of WP:List: Information, Navigation, Development, and supplements categories. People may not like political punditry, but it is a fundamental part of the news business today and has a long history. Crtew (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to access the history of the article "List of political commentators" without success, but a message on talk dates back to 2006, while this nominated list is from 2009. Perhaps the better title was discarded at some earlier point? I couldn't really tell what happened from history. Crtew (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated for merge back when only one person was on the list in 2006. [4] And later on someone redirected it to Pundit (politics), which itself was renamed to Pundit (expert), and now redirects to simply pundits. Dream Focus 20:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here have raised valid points about renaming. Crtew (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the nom, and with the closer of AfD1, that it should have been renamed,so why was it brought here instead.? (the name, as Warden points out, is actually precise, but it seems to have caused some misunderstanding).
Delete per nom. Inclusion criteria are unmanageably broad and vague. Sources that provide lists of pundits are tendentious. Impossible to achieve WP:NPOV. Better to have lists of commentators with specific topics about which they write commentary. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons explained above. This article is unfocused, subjective, and hopelessly difficult to reform. Better to delete and rebuild than attempt to restructure. doktorb _words^deeds 08:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The inclusion criteria are too broad and vague. Just about every political commentator ever could qualify. Ray^Talk 18:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It only list those who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 01:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK for the items in a list not to be notable; please see WP:LISTN. What's under debate here is whether the list is suitable for Wikipedia. As there are many sources of lists of pundits, it's clear that "list of pundits" is notable. This list's main difficulty is whether membership in the list can be determined in a verifiable, unbiased way. Can you shed any light on that? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove anyone from the list that isn't sourced. I searched for the first name on the list with the word "pundit" and found a reliable source to reference them right away. We can also search for the terms "political commentator". Dream Focus 17:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom, the meaning is too broad and there would never be an accurate list. Plus a majority of the list is unsourced anyways JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. StuartDouglas (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: People who are reacting to the broad definition are responding to the term "pundit" and not to the term "political commentator", which is the more specific term for this occupation. Renaming of the list and deleting the list are two different issues. The list should have been renamed as many above are saying. Crtew (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we have various categories for this already listed at Category:Political pundits Dream Focus 01:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category names are as bad as the name of this article. Crtew (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:AlexTiefling. Too vague and subjective to ever be of any use. "List of political commentators" or similar is also not really a solution, as User:RayAYang and User:Doktorbuk point out. Begoon ^talk 05:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 17:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another one of those indiscriminate, inaccurate, poorly-defined laundry lists that needs to die! p b p 18:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list could be endless...and in practice it will totally random (as it is now). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The new tabular presentation helps a lot. However, I also believe it should focus on television commentators. All of the bloggers on the list should be deleted. This automatically limits the list. TV political commentary has been an essential formula in the TV cable business going back to the 1990s. Deleting this list makes no sense as the information is about a valid phenomenon. So I would change my rename above to "List of TV political commentators" to limit the scope. Crtew (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furtheremore, listing William Safire is problematic, as he was an old-fashioned columnist and not part of the era of cable TV that gave rise to the modern pundit, or political commentator. Those like Safire should be immediately deleted along with the bloggers.Crtew (talk) 10:44, 4 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. Mkdw ^talk 08:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein Enterprise[edit]

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

Non notable software, Fails WP:NSOFT, –
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. –→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. –→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT; no significant coverage found in reliable sources. Gong show 22:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no 3rd party RS sources to establish notability of this software; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage at all shows up in Google news archive. With no sources, impossible to achieve notability or verifiability. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All that I could find was this one mention [5] which does not appear to be significant, and also does not appear to be a reliable source. As such, this fails WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:35, 29 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zagreus (audio drama)[edit]

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

Completing AFD for an IP editor who included the following as their rationale in their edit summary (here). On the merits, no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no improvements to this article in spite of 4 year old tags; unnotable audio, but PROD removed so deletion discussion is required for consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.22.6 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:GNG. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:StuartDouglas has also added one WP:RS. I myself would have recently but was unable to at the time. The article does admittedly need some work, and perhaps a little pruning, but it can and will be improved. Ohwrotcod (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added sources for 2 books, and 1 magazine so far. Ohwrotcod (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There needs a lot of work doing, but sources have been added. Need more independent sources, but looks promising. It was a big release so I think it is notable and that notability can be proved Rankersbo (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that the addition of links to Starburst, scifionline and DWM prove notablity. Article still needs a major pruning, but otherwise seems fine to me. StuartDouglas (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Stuart Douglas; reviews establish notability. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 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. J04n(talk page) 11:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Galbraith[edit]

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

Non notable person Lester Foster (talk | talk) 19:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (babble) @ 22:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 22:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 22:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article does not cite a single secondary source. Eatmark (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Eatmark[reply]

Delete A quick look at Google news archive turned up just two hits, both of them press releases, not admissible by WP:GNG. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as resume. No secondary sources establishing notability. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 31 May 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. Mkdw ^talk 08:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life of a Craphead[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Haven't been reviewed by any significant critic, haven't originated a significant new concept, haven't been widely cited by peers. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having been chosen as artists in residence for the Art Gallery of Ontario is a very significant achievement. This is the main provincial art gallery for a province with 13 million people. They were profiled (550 words) in the Globe and Mail, Canada's second largest newspaper by circulation, with coast to coast distribution. A 1300 word article about them appeared in Canadian Art, an art magazine which has been published for 25 years and has a current circulation of 19,000. *They were profiled in This, an award winning magazine with a 45 year history. WP:ARTIST applies only if the topic fails general notability. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added one source, but the Globe & Mail/Canadian Art refs appear to meet GNG by themselves, and WP:ARTIST (3) last clause. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Allow time for sourcing to be added. TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 22:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state the obvious) @ 22:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 22:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs cleaning up, proper formatting and hopefully expanding but the sources provided plus being exhibited at the AGO and the Power Plant more than satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. freshacconci talktalk 23:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anne's coverage above. The Interior (Talk) 00:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: references support notability. PamD 06:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Anne Delong, notability is clearly established, this article has potential to be developed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing in the article is sufficient to establish notability. I'd also say that being named artists in residence at the AGO would qualify under #1 for WP:ARTIST. I've cleaned up the references so that they are all inline now. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Time should be allowed for extensions to be made for this article, I do believe this meets WP:N. AppleJack7_{Dear Princess Celestia...} 02:26, 1 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 Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Kentaro[edit]

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

Non notable artist. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 18:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 18:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state) @ 18:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references already in the article show that coverage in multiple reliable sources exists. Other articles on the subject and his works include [6][7][8][9][10][11]; he meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 20:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. This nomination is withdrawn now that notability has been established. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 22:37, 27 May 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 move then merge to U.S. Route 61/190 Business and Baton Rouge#Highways and roads. (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Boulevard[edit]

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

Deprodded with promise of better sources, but I see none in the link given. The only sources here so far are blogs. Merging to US Route 61/190 Business would be a bad move since this isn't the only Florida Boulevard in the world. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Apart from the existing merge discussion for U.S. Route 61/190 Business, there's an obvious alternative to deletion — merger with Baton Rouge#Highways and roads. The topic could be easily developed as it only takes seconds to find good sources. The nomination therefore seems quite frivolous and disruptive. Warden (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "Merging would be a bad move IMO because there are other Florida Boulevards" did you not understand? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there were other significant highways with the same name then this would be resolved by disambiguation not deletion. There don't seem to be though and you don't give any examples or evidence. Warden (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, what is it with you and being quite hostile to AfD nominators? You've accused TPH here of being disruptive without any evidence to back up your claim (an open merger discussion is not evidence to this regard), I remember you being assuming bad faith about one of mine (and assuming I'd never opened one before), and generally, in every AfD I've seen you in, you've appeared to be very hostile. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, the solution to that is to move the page to Florida Boulevard (Baton Rogue) and then merge. Wham, bam, problem solved. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Insider's Guide to Baton Rouge has a small chapter on the road. There are a number of other interesting articles on GNews which, unfortunately, have broken links, e.g. "Florida Boulevard businesses leave downtown, move east". Pburka (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is fine, too. Pburka (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to U.S. Route 61/190 Business - Relevant information can be covered there. Dough 48 72 02:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Florida Boulevard (Baton Rouge) to avoid dab concerns and then Merge to U.S. Route 61/190 Business and/or Baton Rouge#Highways and roads as appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:14, 24 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, Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Florida Boulevard (Baton Rouge) then Merge to U.S. Route 61/190 Business. That would seem to resolve everyone's concerns, no? Stalwart111 00:02, 28 May 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. L Faraone 00:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore Venkata Raman[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources to establish some of the claims in this article , nor can I locate any sources giving significant coverage (which is decidedly odd considering the claims of notability). The RAS website makes no mention of Bangalore Venkata Raman (see site:ras.org.uk Bangalore @ google). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:57, 17 May 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 May 19. Snotbot t • c » 08:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources at all. Somebody should also have a look at Niranjan Babu, which has similar problems. 122.176.146.47 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is me, the unsigned IP from up there. I have reviewed the sources linked below, as well as those for searches from BV Raman+Astrologer [12] and I think I was wrong -- he was indeed notable. Enough so, apparently, that even Carl Jung wrote to him [13]. I'd change to keep. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having someone famous write to you doesn't make you notable. Notability isn't inherited, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after clean-up: There are a few sources online: his works, works on him, a NYT report on his death. I haven't analyzed the article or the sources in depth and there might be more. The problem is that the article is very poorly written with unreliable sources (first one is a self-published source) and all major claims are missing references. It requires a major overhaul and every unverifiable statement removed. Samar ^Talk 14:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first is just a non-specific link to a search, and the second doesn't look reliable, the third gives a fair amount of coverage, but the article gives little critical insight and mostly just quotes a given obituary and Raman's website. I don't think the article should be based on the strength of that single obituary . IRWolfie- (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe with an in-depth search more sources can be found. There is a Britannica entry about him and the book on him Dr. B.V. Raman: the man and his mission can be used for expansion; I can't call it unreliable as the author (S.V. Jayasheela Rao) seems to have some credentials. I understand your point too, many of the claims are not sourced which may leave behind a stub but I am not in favor of delete right now, I think we should request a subject expert to look into the article. Samar ^Talk 16:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably the only person consistently active in the astrology wikiproject, you could try WikiProject India, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Please search with "B. V. Raman" too to find more sources.

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

As said above, Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry, see this journal article, This ref is trivial but still it mentions "legendary astrologer"! Seeing the other results from Google web the article passes basic WP:GNG barrier! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A self published blog on a "journal" isn't reliable, and trivial sources don't add up to significant coverage, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable figure, passes WP:Scholar.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's not an academic, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest merge the the article of son and daughter with this one. They are just continuing the work of the father, should they have their own article. Samar ^Talk 09:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can start separate AFDs! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need AfDs for merges, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after looking things over. Even with the few sources found, he doesn't seem to pass WP:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 25 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, Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The NYT piece is a deal breaker already, but more results can be easily seen online that confirm that the subject is regarded as a prominent astrologer [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20], and that's the English results only. From their tone, and taking into account the years of activity, it becomes safe to assume that offline sources are also available — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is a prominent astrologer. His books are read and followed widely in certain circles. The dearth of reliable sources citing him and his work is because he never published a lot in

English. I would strongly recommend keeping of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.19.2.87 (talk) 03:01, 1 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. J04n(talk page) 22:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tonkin Corporation[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 by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: ((subst:spa|username)) or ((subst:canvassed|username))

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

I can not find any reliable sources that discuss this business. I can not find anything to show that this company is notable. GB fan 22:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, Wikipedia's notability guidelines are not satisfied by the content of this article. Also, Wikipedia's guideline about unremarkable companies are met. It lists only one achievement: nomination in BRW lists. BRW lists are like Fortune magazine lists. A company appears on a list, but there are no accompanying articles, journal reports or newsworthy pieces which might elaborate on notability. For this reason, even if these lists were cited, there would still be insufficient sourcing to ensure verifiable notability because its a list entry rather than material of substance. However, the two references citing it as a BRW Fast 100 nominee are broken or subject of link rot. Further research has not uncovered similar sources to verify the claims. The other reference about the BRW Fast 100 nomination is live but is a link to a self-promoting page on another company's websites which itself does not even mention Tonkin Corporation. In the absence of verifiable references as to its notability, the company exhibits the same profile of millions around the world, the standard of remarkability is not satisfied and thus the article should be deleted. If some other notability could be ascribed to this company, I would welcome the discussion. I have not found any.

Second, this company has never been in the data, marketing and publishing industries in any source material available. The company was in the conference industry.

Third, this company has never had an office in New York, nor in Manila. This is unsubstantiated and unverified. I can find not verifiable source on this.

Fourth, whether the shareholders did appoint a practitioner to handle the affairs of this business is moot. If there is no notability originally, see point one, then appointment of a practitioner does not make it notable unless Wikipedia's aspiration is to be a directory of liquidated companies. Rather, Wikipedia's notability guidelines come then in sharper relief and the article should be deleted. Further, were notability and remarkability to fail, the remnant of this article is an assertion solely about a recent event. Articles overweight on recent events are discouraged by Wikipedia.

Fifth, various recent re-edits have sought to emphasise ownership of this company in the context of insolvency rather than the management which caused it. The Administrator has correctly reverted this article to versions which omit the liquidator's name and the shareholders' names. Ownership of companies which fail to satisfy notability criteria is as relevant as the name of a liquidator of companies which fail to satisfy notability criteria. Also, despite recent re-edits, great restraint has been shown from the shareholders not to 'go to town' with this article in disclosing journalised details of the employed managerial capability. Comparable restraint is not being demonstrated by others. What is left is an article about an unremarkable company which prone to bias and therefore should be deleted.

Sixth, on at least three occasions, this article has been subjected to vandalism. One example involved insertion of a low ranked former employee's name, ascribing him the designation CEO. While Wikipedia administrators have corrected these issues over time, the article has become an editorial war (see last two months) and factual errors have been inserted (see second and third point, and previous versions which assert opening and closing of offices without being verified. These are all untrue). Circumstantially, some persistent recent re-edits on this article are mirrored in other social media websites which display the names of the writers. These authors seek to, incorrectly, lay claim that a shareholder of the company personally owes debts rather than the corporate entity which is the subject of this article. Such claims are defamatory. Any editor of this article must show authentic, independently verifiable evidence that a shareholder personally owes money rather than the subject of this article before the publishing the edits. In another entry in the talk section, there are attacks on this company for alleged breaches of the Spam Act. No such evidence was offered. The slur remains in the talk section of this article. What is left is an un-encyclopedic melee and, for all these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the article should be deleted.

Seventh, there are many other companies in different jurisdictions called Tonkin Corporation in the United Kingdom, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Canada, China (Hong Kong SAR), Jamaica and the United States. Most are unrelated to this entity. Where they are related parties, the shareholder registries are almost entirely different. In the absence of diligence and care to tease these companies out properly, this article should be deleted so as not to cause confusion with the others. Wikipedia guidelines are cogniscent that groups and individual companies within them should not be blurred.

Finally, if one considers that a minimal standard of importance for this company has not been established, that there is insufficient sourcing available to ensure verifiable notability, that remarkability has not been met, the factual inaccuracies as to activities and locations, the vandalism, and all the other reasons outlined here including that it not encyclopedic, it is respectfully submitted that this article beRovingeditor deleted.Rovingeditor (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Rovingeditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Question for roving editor do you have any connection to Tonkin Corporation? LibStar (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORP. I couldn't find substantial reliable source coverage for this company. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. no extensive coverage, just little mentions in little coverage. [21]. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Trout for Rovingeditor for the worst case of flag-bombing that I have ever seen at Wikipedia. My POV alarm is buzzing so loud that my ears are ringing... Carrite (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that Rovingeditor seems to be a Single Purpose Account with respect to this subject. Carrite (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORP. Can't find anything notable here. Agree with Carrite re flag-bombing.Pechar689 (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Pechar689 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Agree with GB fan, Gene93k, LibStar, Pechar689 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvetchops (talk • contribs) 06:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Velvetchops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The points detailed below by 'Roving Editor' and ' GB Fan' arguing for deletion of this Tonkin Corporation entry are, I would assert are deliberately obfuscatory.

I also challenge the objectivity of 'Roving Editor' and 'GB Fan' If one examines the editing history of both the 'Roving Editor' and 'GB Fan' it is clear that are closely associates of the owner of Tonkin Corporation.

Please note the following:

1) A conference company called Tonkin Corporation founded by a Mr Kenelm Tonkin operated for several years in Australia and other countries

2) The Tonkin Corporation wiki entry was regularily updated during this period to highlight Tonkin's awards and their purported high growth rates. These listings ran for several years and at not stage were their objections raised about their veracity or appropriatness as these awards were from recognised publications. Strangely, now that Tonkin Corporation has gone into litigation Roving Editor and GB Fan - whom circumstantial evidence would suggest are the same person close to the ownership of Tonkin Corporation - suddenly question the relevance of these documented awards. I would argue that they are doing s purely as a pretext for the removal of the entire Tonkin Corp entry on wiki so as to avoid the embarassment of the reference to the organisations liquidation, which is documented by the Australian Securities and Investments Corporation - 'ASIC'- the Australian government regulatory body ASIC^[1]

3) When Tonkin Corporation was placed into liquidation in early 2013 many of its creditors and employees were left severely financially disadvantaged as Tonkin Corporation was unable to honor its financial obligations

4) Within several weeks of Tonkin Corporation's liquidation in Australia a similarily named organisation was established in the United States, again associated with Kenelm Tonkin and began actively recruiting employees. Please see text below from http://www.linkedin.com/company/tonkin-corporation

" AMAZING NEWS ... ..... FOR GRADUATES University is behind you. Maybe you have a few years’ experience under your belt. So, what’s your next step? Tonkin Corporation takes what you’ve learned in your degree and extends it. It’s as breathtaking an experience as having everything in black and white, then suddenly seeing the world in shocking technicolour. You master research, direct marketing, channel development, copywriting, the art of selling, time management, strategy, budget management and the magic of persuading others. Along the way, you hone your personal effectiveness, social antennae and leadership capacity. The result is a more focused you, armed with real-world skills no lecturer could ever impart. Everything you learn is portable. They are life skills as much as commercial talents.

In short, Tonkin Corporation welcomes you, moulds you, empowers you and then, in a great celebration, unleashes you. This all can be yours. But you have to be bold and a little daring, trusting your instincts that life was meant to be lived and workplaces are supposed to be laboratories for experiment, learning and growth. To discover more, read now about Tonkin Corporation below or visit www.TonkinCorporation.com today."

Given the past track record of Tonkin Corporations founder and the fact that this individual is now actively seeking new employees and - as a necessary party of organizing a conference - entering into contracts with suppliers I would assert that a full record of his past achievements and financial challenges should be available to these individuals so that they can make an informed decision on whether to proceed.

Deleting this entry would serve the interests of only one person, the owner of Tonkin Corporation. Converesly, maintaining this entry would serve the interests of many individuals and companies, who otherwise might trade with this company deprived of the full history of said individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Financial-australia (talk • contribs) 04:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Financial-australia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

For consideration in response to Financial-australia's points below:

In relation to point 1): This seems only partly true. A quick ASIC search reveals the company was founded 13 years ago by multiple people as an Australian proprietary company with no overseas subsidiaries. Can't see what's notable or remarkable here.

In relation to point 2): The edit history of this article does not show it was regularly updated until March 2013. Between April and December 2012, for instance, no edits were made. I had a look online for info on this comp. Couldn't find anything. Agreed that awards for "high growth rates" seem "purported" (as Financial-australia puts it) and so there's no verifiable notability here. There seems to be little about this company. Embarrassment or otherwise is immaterial, though deletion of this article would not affect any embarrassment suffered by the government website quoted. Argued motive to delete doesn't gel. This issue really revolves around whether this company is notable.

In relation to point 3): This happens in any liquidation and is unremarkable. What Financial-australia says here is obvious for any liquidation but he/she seems privy to "left severely financially disadvantaged." Question: is Financial-australia involved?

In relation to point 4): A simple search of US LLC incorporations shows this assertion about timing doesn't add up having occurred two years ago. The overtly promotional material quoted from another social media site and the ad hominem are not pertinent to the discussion about notability.

~~Not notable, delete.Pechar689 (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

*Note: You only get to !vote once, Pechar689. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the two posts directly above this down from the top and rearranged them to show the order in which they were added to the conversation. The wording makes it a little odd now since they talk about posts below but they do not belong at the top. Next to Financial-australia, I have no connection to this company. I found this article while reviewing speedy deletion nominations and starting cleaning it up from invalid deletion attempts. If you have reliable sources that show the company meets our notability guidelines please present them so we can fix the article and not delete it. GB fan 10:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would request that the Ronkin Corporation entry not be deleted.

Tonkin Corporation is no ordinary small company. It has received numerous accolades in the Australian press over the last five years.

The leading national Australian business magazine, Business Review Weekly, repeatedly featuring in BRW's list of the fastest growing Australian companies ("The business has already made BRW’s Fast 100 three times in seven years - it’s an achievement to make the list just once and a rarity to make it three times" BRW Nov 2nd 2011 - link below)

BRW coverage included a profile of the organisations founder Kenelm Tonkin in which he elucidated the reasons for his extraordinary success in business, whilst other national publications such as the Australian Financial Review featured his success www.brw.com.au/p/sections/emerging_companies/lessons_learned_TDno1yzIbqlyo0Y934FPYN www.brw.com.au/p/leadership/how_to_help_new_employees_hit_the_iPu5s6fvtRzuMi6OwZJtPP http://absmagazine.com.au/2012/05/01/expanding-offshore-tips-for-success

So high was Mr Tonkin's profile, that the Australian Financial Review even provided Mr Tonkin with a national syndicated column in which he advised other businesses on best practice strategies: www.afr.com/p/business/enterprise/throw_out_the_doubt_4huXqjaxAZslFY8ST4ZZ5I

www.afr.com/p/business/enterprise/how_to_sell_your_business_B7ddwKY5TH3NgS0kXtQtfK

www.afr.com/p/business/enterprise/make_time_to_research_pg5h9qZYPIBt7qagIAfeGP

Mr Tonkin has also been lauded as one of Australia's leading business thinkers - "Kenelm Tonkin is regarded as one of Australia’s foremost experts in business leadership and growth" - via a number of PR web sites http://prwire.com.au/pr/34573/kenelm-tonkin-leading-writer-thinker-and-business-forecaster-3 http://prwire.com.au/pr/34573/kenelm-tonkin-leading-writer-thinker-and-business-forecaster-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Financial-australia (talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

"Tonkin Corporation is no ordinary small company. It has received numerous accolades in the Australian press over the last five years.

The leading national Australian business magazine, Business Review Weekly, repeatedly featuring in BRW's list of the fastest growing Australian companies (""The business has already made BRW’s Fast 100 three times in seven years - it’s an achievement to make the list just once and a rarity to make it three times"" BRW Nov 2nd 2011 - link below)

BRW coverage included a profile of the organisations founder Kenelm Tonkin in which he elucidated the reasons for his extraordinary success in business, whilst other national publications such as the Australian Financial Review featured his success www.brw.com.au/p/sections/emerging_companies/lessons_learned_TDno1yzIbqlyo0Y934FPYN www.brw.com.au/p/leadership/how_to_help_new_employees_hit_the_iPu5s6fvtRzuMi6OwZJtPP http://absmagazine.com.au/2012/05/01/expanding-offshore-tips-for-success

So high was Mr Tonkin's profile, that the Australian Financial Review even provided Mr Tonkin with a national syndicated column in which he advised other businesses on best practice strategies: www.afr.com/p/business/enterprise/throw_out_the_doubt_4huXqjaxAZslFY8ST4ZZ5I www.afr.com/p/business/enterprise/how_to_sell_your_business_B7ddwKY5TH3NgS0kXtQtfK www.afr.com/p/business/enterprise/make_time_to_research_pg5h9qZYPIBt7qagIAfeGP

Mr Tonkin has also been lauded as one of Australia's leading business thinkers - ""Kenelm Tonkin is regarded as one of Australia’s foremost experts in business leadership and growth"" - via a number of PR web sites http://prwire.com.au/pr/34573/kenelm-tonkin-leading-writer-thinker-and-business-forecaster-3 http://prwire.com.au/pr/34573/kenelm-tonkin-leading-writer-thinker-and-business-forecaster-3" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Financial-australia (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasted twice above. Annoying. Needs to be cleaned. I've just spent 45 minutes sifting through this latest evidence. Nothing is furthered on the BRW list. They are simple lists without any material about this company. Users have had days now to find articles about the company. Let's look at this:

www.brw.com.au/p/sections/emerging_companies/lessons_learned_TDno1yzIbqlyo0Y934FPYN This article mentions Ascential Consulting, Bilo, Shoeys, Tonkin Corporation, the University of Newcastle, Liberal Party of Australia, the NSW Crime Commission and IIR Conferences, a competitor of Tonkin Corporation. This article is not about Tonkin Corporation. It's about Kenelm Tonkin. There is nothing notable about the company here.

www.brw.com.au/p/leadership/how_to_help_new_employees_hit_the_iPu5s6fvtRzuMi6OwZJtPP This article reports a survey, and doesn't in anyway focus on Tonkin Corporation's notability. A company sending out a survey is hardly notable.

http://absmagazine.com.au/2012/05/01/expanding-offshore-tips-for-success In the 15 substantive paragraphs of this article, this company is notable to the extent that it's mentioned not once. Citing this is a real stretch. You begin to see the WP:CORP fail pattern.

Three AFR links are given. These are behind a paywall. The writer raises these, not to say Tonkin Corporation is notable, but rather a person. OK. Good. Nice argument for a different article. This article is about a company not a person. The two are not the same. Nothing is being offered about Tonkin Corporation as being notable.

Then the writer quotes http://prwire.com.au/pr/34573/kenelm-tonkin-leading-writer-thinker-and-business-forecaster-3 http://prwire.com.au/pr/34573/kenelm-tonkin-leading-writer-thinker-and-business-forecaster-3. This is a press release, hardly a credible source. Even if it were credible, its about a person not this company. Again, notability has not been established.

Nothing has persuaded me away from my previous thought about this one. I hope stepping through each link provided carefully shows this is an candidate for deletion.Velvetchops (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you Financial-australia? Respond to the arguments here please rather than double the size of the article by refocusing it on a person. No edit justification. This is supposed to be about a company, not a person.Rovingeditor (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You know, I'm not really sure what to make of all this. The notability of Tonkin Corporation is obviously questionable, but this AfD discussion is a mess. There is so much rambling and apparent canvassing from new users on both sides. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've read all the above. Based on the information there,, there are sufficient sources for notability, I will AGF about the nomination, though perhaps that's stretching the definition of GF. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 24 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, Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. THis looks like an obvious delete, but there are so many issues with rationales and the users that have made them that' I'm going to re-list this for further comments. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV issues aside, there's not much coverage in reliable sources here, and given the current liquidation, there's not likely to more forthcoming. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move the article to Kenneth Tonkin and rewrite accordingly. As mentioned above, that's what the best references support.'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquín Carbonell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he has never played for in a WP:FPL, never coached/managed in a FPL, and there is no evidence of meeting GNG, either here, or in Google. Even the Spanish Wiki doesn't appear to have this player there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 18:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 18:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 18:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has never played or managed in a fully pro league, and he has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 08:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mehrnaz Naini[edit]

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

Notability Lesion (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talkin' to me?) @ 18:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not established by her high-profile clients. JFW | T@lk 19:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage in reliable sources not found. Rklear (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. -- Scray (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Zad68 00:37, 31 May 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 soft delete. L Faraone 00:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Sullivan[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and gnews of substance. Article makes a number of claims, but fails to provide support for claims. reddogsix (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talkin' to me?) @ 16:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (babble) @ 16:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 16:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (whisper) @ 16:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little or no coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 27 May 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 00:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick E Grayson[edit]

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

Unambiguously promotional article about a man running for public office. Speedy G11 tag was removed by a third party. - Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a promotional article. This article serves the public interest as this individual is a high profile public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom4Future (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence that this candidate is indeed high-profile?
"Serving the public interest" is not part of Wikipedia's mission and, in fact, the way you're doing it fits our definition of "promotional".

--- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the Wiki guidelines on High Profile, media interest, and other reasons you believe warrant deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom4Future (talk • contribs) 16:51, 27 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Check out any and all of these: WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:BLP1E. In particular, WP:POLITICIAN states that "Just being…an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since the editor who created the article has admitted that he's the subject, WP:Autobiography comes into play. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to failure to provide multiple reliable sources that show Grayson is notable beyond his intent to run for Senate. The general rule is that running for office does not make one inherently notable: the subject should either be notable before the run for office, or they should receive so much coverage that they meet WP:GNG as a result of the coverage of their run. There is only one secondary source, a Creative Loafing article, that mentions Grayson's Senate run. There are no secondary sources that demonstrate his notability outside of his candidacy. (The Washington Post article cited does not mention Grayson at all; it mentions attacks on another politician but makes no mention of Grayson's role in that.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also International News organization http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj5wMa9kcsc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom4Future (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes RT (formerly Russia Today) did about a five-minute interview with Grayson. It identified him as a "Ron Paul supporter," and the interview was about Paul, not Grayson. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN specifically and WP:GNG more broadly. One interview with the subject about someone else is coverage by the subject of someone else, not coverage of the subject, which is what we require. Stalwart111 00:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity. This individual is obviously notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom4Future (talk • contribs) 09:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom4Future (talk • contribs) 12:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "relevant material". The personal information is not relevant to the election and it is entirely unsourced. eg: "Derrick E. Grayson developed an interest in music at an early age,". Wow. Tiller54 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is far too soon for the subject to have a stand alone article on Wikipedia. The subject has not received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources for the subject to be considered notable as defined by WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, let alone POLITICIAN as others above have pointed out. Even if the subject has stated that he is running in 2014, WP:CRYSTALBALL also comes into play, and the subject of this AfD might just become a redirect to the United States Senate election in Georgia, 2014#Candidates.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:06, 3 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 merge to List of diplomatic missions of Colombia. (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, The Hague[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. also nominating:

~~Embassy of Colombia, Warsaw~~ (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Cairo - Ansh666 05:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Embassy of Colombia, New Delhi
Embassy of Colombia, Bern
Embassy of Colombia, Moscow
Embassy of Colombia, Tokyo

these are mere directory listings. those wanting to keep must show third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was a previous AfD about Colombian embassies. I suggest whatever course of action that one took (I think merge/redirect to the relevant bilateral relations articles but not sure) Ansh666 01:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here we go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Cairo - so per that, Merge to List of diplomatic missions of Colombia unless individual notability can be shown. Ansh666 02:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, per that, can you add Embassy of Colombia, Tokyo and Embassy of Colombia, Tokyo but remove Embassy of Colombia, Warsaw, User:LibStar? Ansh666 02:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 21 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, Theopolisme (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per my rationale in various similar AfDs - the buildings themselves are not notable, in my view, unless they have been the subject of embassy-specific coverage (like an ongoing scandal or an attack or architecture-related editorial) or unless the building itself could be considered notable for its historical value, architectural design, previous uses, etc. I see nothing like that in any of these cases. Routine coverage of diplomatic events (that have nothing to do with the building itself) don't make the building notable. Stalwart111 00:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of diplomatic missions of Colombia. This should be handled like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Cairo. - tucoxn\^talk 20:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should say, I have no problem with a merge solution but all of the above are already listed at List of diplomatic missions of Colombia. But if someone can find material worth merging then by all means. Stalwart111 22:00, 28 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brave People (film)[edit]

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

The references appear to be WP:ROUTINE and the film to fails WP:NOTFILM and WP:GNG. 12:52, 27 May 2013‎ Tanbircdq

Comment Tanbircdq I have signed for you. As explained by 65.94.76.126 on Talk:The Horsemen (1971 film) the relative importance of this Soviet film will not automatically allow your RM to remove "1971" to go through, since there are demonstrably other films which were released as "The Horsemen" and "Horsemen." In ictu oculi (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously - just look at the ru.wp article. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I see English-language results in Google Books Search. Fair to assume there are Russian-language sources not immediately accessible here. WP:ROUTINE does not apply especially in the face of retrospective coverage in Google Books. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of references both here and on the Russian Wikipedia article; can't read Russian but will assume good faith that they are legitimate. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:55, 27 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Beersheba Massacre[edit]

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

Article that may not meet notability guidelines. smileguy91^talk 14:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: More discussion on the XFD is at my talk page (link) smileguy91^talk 16:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I live in Israel and I do not remember ever such event occurred in our country. It's severe enough to Article. I'm sorry if you do not understand my English. Dekel E (talk) 06:31, 24 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, J04n(talk page) 12:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widely covered by national level reliable sources in Israel. Marokwitz (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. by the standards of Israel, this is a very unusual crime that does not occur everyday or even every year. Linda Olive (talk) 07:27, 30 May 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 00:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in New Zealand[edit]

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

This is a link farm. While I can understand the argument about it being useful for navigation, that's what navboxes are for. This should be a nice neat template at the bottom of each year article, not a stand-alone article with no content other than bluelinks. Grutness...wha? 12:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "that's what navboxes are for" - per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Per WP:CLN is a reason for deletion and replacement by a navbox, not a reason for keeping. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aids in navigation, and no valid reason given to delete it. Nothing gained by it not being on the Wikipedia. Dream Focus 14:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Linkfarm" is a valid reason for deletion. "Better as a template" is also a valid reason for deletion. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates You can not destroy one thing, because you like something else better. There is no reason why something can not exist as a category, list, and a navigational template. And that's not a linkfarm, its a legitimate navigational aid. Dream Focus 14:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now. my point of view has now changed from 3 years ago due to being on the wrong side of a new digital divide: more than 2/3 of my internet access is by smartphone, with an affordability cap of 2GB a month. neither the Android app nor the mobile version of Wikipedia give access to the category system (or talk pages!). And large navboxes chew data quota (which is why I created the small nav template at the top of the page). This is the norm for Wikipedia users in many developing countries, and clearly needs to be addressed. I am going to have to let the bot sign for me as the virtual keyboard doesn't have a tilde. (I'm now at work and the bot hasn't visited, so: dramatic (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this list 7 years ago on the basis that many other similar articles existed at that time. I presume by the fact that there are still so many that they are useful and must have (mostly) survived any similar attempts at Afd. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are about 15 similar articles for countries (hardly what would be classed as "many") by the looks of it. Not sure that WP:OTHERSTUFF is a useful argument for keeping, though. Grutness...wha? 09:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the usefulness. Anyone that can find that list can change the year in the browser and find the next one without some list. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone that voted keep. Using an article as a category or navbox is inappropriate. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "inappropriate" because Chris Troutman says so? Our guidelines and widespread practice say the opposite. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you have WP:CLN on your side. Wikipedia:Listcruft (an essay, not a guideline) explains my point of view. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP. There's some navigational utility to having links to all the years on one page; Category:Years in New Zealand has them split by subcategory. A reader may wish to use tabbed browsing to open mutiple years at once. Preserving this list also allows editors to experiment with different ways of organizing the links for better presentation (i.e., that whole "Wikipedia is a work in progress" thing we're supposed to live by here), while deleting would close that door for absolutely no benefit. I would think a navbox with over 200 links would be a rather cumbersome thing to add to any article, and would have more restricted formatting capabilities. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We usually handle these through categories, preferably with a by century, rather than by decade parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should be done by category or navbox....William 16:48, 2 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Dann[edit]

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

I believe this fails WP:AUTHOR - only has released one book to date Gbawden (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, it does. His work is far from having received significant critical attention, and I see no other grounds for notability. However, PROD might have been appropriate in this case, since it would've been relatively uncontroversial. Ray^Talk 13:06, 28 May 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 soft delete. L Faraone 00:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Alston[edit]

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

Orphan article. No mention of him playing for Seahawks - except that he had been released in 2007. Google can't show a current team.The NFL stats for him (see link in infobox) show no matches played. If he hasn't played he isn't notable Gbawden (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 11:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to confirm any notability at this time. I would change my position if it were presented. No prejudice to re-create at a later date if notability is established.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:30, 27 May 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. L Faraone 00:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Séralini affair[edit]

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

This article has clearly been placed here with the sole object of vilifying Prof Seralini, who had the temerity to publish a paper that showed that rats fed on Roundup and GMO maize were harmed. Those findings were not outrageous or radical -- they were perfectly predictable, given previous published work. They were also published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal. But the findings clearly negatively impacted the commercial aspirations of Monsanto -- so its friends have tried to divert attention from the real issues by writing this heavily biased and defamatory article seeking to make "the scientific" furore into the main story, thereby diverting attention from the real issue -- relating to the fact that Roundup kills things and that GMOs may not be very good for you either. So this article is incapable of detailed editing -- almost every line needs to be rewritten in order to restore balance, and having tried a few edits it is clear that the supporters of this article will simply move in straight away and remove them. This sort of dafamation -- with a clear political and commercial imperative behind it -- should have no place on Wikipedia. In my humble opinion, the article must be permanently removed. Glacierman (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or rename, or merge to genetically modified food controversies in case of low notability, although with about 60 WP:RSs problems with notability are very unlikely. BTW, I hardly believe that nomination of this article to deletion is possible in a good faith. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article as it stands kind of grew out of the Controversies article. There is a discussion of the Seralini affair in it here, which was edited down to try to make that article have more manageable length. Jinkinson created the Seralini Affair article for reasons I don't know, and I subsequently fleshed it out with material that had been edited out of the Controversies article.Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The present title is POV and inappropriate. At Google Scholar, "Séralini affair" only shows up 3 times, and in each instance, it is an ironic use, since all three articles criticize Monsanto, or European food authorities for efforts to silence criticism of genetically modified food. At Google News Archive, it only shows up as this Wikipedia article. As an "Affair" it inherently and improperly assumes wrongdoing by Séralini. Edison (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that the present title was taken from the similar Pusztai affair. AIRcorn (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see clear evidence of POV or being a WP:Attack page (though the article is rather messy, so I don't know), and there is no issue with notability. Nom is a SPA on a WP:SOAPBOX. Ansh666 11:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the Séralini affair is certainly notable, and there's no shortage of respectable independent sources which discuss the issue, so it shouldn't be hard to write a neutral article. However, "neutral" doesn't necessarily mean "only saying good stuff"; independent sources generally point out flaws in Séralini's "research" so we shouldn't shy away from that. Just look at Bogdanov Affair, Andrew Wakefield, Hwang Woo-suk &c - instead of deleting those pages, we write neutral content. bobrayner (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Because those pleading "libel" or "defamation" appear reluctant to actually show any evidence for those accusations. The other suggestion that editors on this article work for Monsanto as a reason to delete seems to go against assuming a neutral pov from edtors Roxy the dog (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is a mess, but it is fairly neutral and the article should be kept and edited/rewritten to clean it up. I also believe that the nomination is problematic with the nominator having an agenda. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is notable and nothing challenging that has been presented. The basis of the nomination appears to be that the article is neutral and doesn't reflect the Nom's skewed version of science. Well, that's just too bad, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I can't claim to have any expertise or great knowledge of the subject at hand, the tone of the article, particularly the lede, does not have the appearance of impartiality - it reads like the article has an axe to grind. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what does that have to do with an AfD? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; As a new article, it's far from perfect and is still a work in progress but it is a notable topic and should have an article. BlackHades (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The controversy has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. It is POV at point, favoring Monsanto and European food safety authorities, so some editing is needed. As I said above in a comment, the title is POV and inappropriate, and has not been used much in news or scientific publications. The actual death rates in the experimental and control groups would be useful information to add. Edison (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to work off the primary source picking what you think is significant is always going to be inherently problematic. Recall that we don't aim to balance different viewpoints as equal on wikipedia, but reflect where the due weight is. You say the article favours of the POV of the European food safety authorities. I don't see what you mean. From what I can gather the EFSA reflects the mainstream point of view on this issue and I'm not sure what is unduly favourable about the article content. This is a paper that was promoted via press conference (and film/book announcements) in rather strange circumstances, but which got a very bad scientific reception and appears to be nearly universally panned. The article should reflect that and not give the paper undue legitimacy or create some false balance, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the creator of this article, I think that, well, I would rather not see something I put a lot of work into go to waste, and also this has gotten a lot of media coverage, enough, I think to count as worthy of its own article, kind of like the MMR vaccine controversy. Jinkinson (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep This article is likely to be a time sink, but for a such poorly executed study it has received a lot of coverage in the media. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is well sourced and on a highly notable topic that has lasting and foundation laying importance of not just the topic of GMOs but trends in scientific publishing and related issues with proliferation of non-peer reviewed studies and allegations of junk science influencing public policy, the facts and tone can be managed within community standards and guidelines. CinagroErunam (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The paper and ensuing controversies have had the greatest and most far reaching impact on GM use around the world- and this impact continues to this day. It provides great examples for topics that range from effective science communication to ethics in science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waparrott (talk • contribs) 17:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per aforementioned reasons. C6541 (Talk ↔ Contribs) 18:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for reasons articulated by bobrayner above.Volunteer Marek 23:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is poorly written and needs a lot of work/reorganization, but it pretty clearly is sourced enough to not just be a page to "vilify" anyone, and it clearly satisfies WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inks.LWC (talk • contribs)
Keep and move – I agree with the original nominator that the entire concept of the "Séralini affair" was created to discredit work on the health risks associated with Roundup. However, I think there is a substantial amount of wiki-worthy material surrounding Séralini and his work. I recommend moving the page to a more neutral title, such as "Séralini GMO research". ("Séralini glyphosate research", "Séralini research", "Séralini GMO studies" -- reasonable various.) For more explanation, and sources related to the concoction of the "Séralini affair", please see my recent talk page comment. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is chiefly about the discredited work of Séralini and the criticism from the scientific community that occurred, and the surrounding issues. Renaming it would be moving it away from neutrality. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename The main article should have a neutral title, explaining all sides in the article. If the controversy is extensive, it could be treated in a separate article. Right now, the title gives no indication of the subject matter and is very confusing. petrarchan47 t c 02:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I fail to see how somewhat controversially debated scientific publication constitutes an "affair", so already the name seems totally inappropriate to me. That could be seen as a violation of WP:OR and seems to be the manufacturing of an affair via Wikipedia. Aside from the questionable (unsourced name) name I don't quite see the encyclopedic notability in terms of its own article. That academic publications get criticized (sometimes heavily) is normal part of the academic/scientific process and as such not really notable. Now if an academic article create a longstanding controversy and the controversy as such becomes rather influential on future developments, then there might encyclopedic notability. Parts of the content can be moved to GMO related articles and the biography of Seralini (but adhering to WP:BIO and WP:UNDUE).--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I fail to see how somewhat controversially debated scientific publication constitutes an "affair"": Then check the sources. This source, for example, calls it the Séralini scandal: [22].There is enough sources and over a sufficient period to satisfy WP:INDEPTH and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, if you view the scandal as an event and the reaction to it (the publication and science by press conference). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that I've skimmed and read beforehand do not use the word "affair" nor do they amount to one. I can't access the link you've sourced, so I can't comment on that one in particular.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The title "affair" vs. "scandal" (with affair being the more neutral but perhaps less accurate terms, given the numerous headlines and articles which characterize this as a "scandal" or "fiasco") is one of semantics and not an issue of noteworthiness for keeping the article. This "affair" involved not just scientific misconduct it represented a new manner in which purported scientific publishing was shared with the public and a heretofore unseen level of media manipulation tactics used to prevent actual review and scrutiny of the claims. This was both groundbreaking and influential as a result and continues to be cited in scientific and mainstream literature for the damage it caused and as a standard for regulatory bodies to consider when reviewing critical safety claims which fail to meet standard scientific rigor. If you want more examples in the published scientific and mainstream literature than those cited in the article which support the importance, high degree of interest and corresponding effects associated with this specific incident I refer you to the following:

Respectfully submitted, CinagroErunam (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully but the argument as given is borderline ridiculous. 7 of the 11 links above are not working, that is they link to no article about the study. One of the few working ones is linked twice (new scientist) and one is a blog. There is no doubt that the study caused short debate/controversy, but I personally still don't see how that amounts to encyclopedic notability goes beyond normal news nor how anyone should conclude that by the links/evidence provided above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check again, the editor made a simple mistake with the links, which I have now fixed. It is not normal for a study to be covered by so many peer reviewed opinions, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix, I don't quite see how they amount to an affair though.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may help Kmhkmh to read the wiki on Scientific Method in order to understand the nature of the "affair". Having read the links supplied by our composting friend above, I am more and more inclined to suggest that "Scandal" should replace "affair".Roxy the dog (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the above. Is it too late to get a snow close? Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:38, 3 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tablogue[edit]

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

Suspected neologism, no reliable sources about the term could be found Lakokat 10:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (yak) @ 11:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another blogger trying to coin a buzzword. W Nowicki (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one seems to use the term at all. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism created by an SPA (the company that supposedly uses this term, T-Commerce, was founded by Tom Hacon, and the article creator is User:Tomhacon). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:46, 28 May 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 00:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Stolorz[edit]

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

Concerns over WP:NOTABILITY for biographies; article suggests no coverage in mainstream sources, and neither did my (granted, quick) search. The sources mention include a book or an article - Twórczość Józefa Stolorza - that however appears only to exist on Wikipedia (hoax?). Ditto for the cited TV program (Żyjąc nadzieją - twórczość Józefa Stolorza). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (orate) @ 11:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 11:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know about a hoax, but no real assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gry Tina Tinde[edit]

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

Does not stand out from the average hard-working civil servant. Lack of coverage in Norwegian media. Note: This article was previously Afd'ed, but the procedure was correctly stopped because the user was block evading. I happen to agree though and therefore restarted it. Geschichte (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 09:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 09:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual seems decidedly below the threshold for inclusion. Lack of available sourcing to demonstrate notability. (Disclosure: I procedurally deleted the previous AFD) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject simply doesn't meet WP:GNG. (Disclosure: I tagged the previous AFD for speedy deletion) Stalwart111 11:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The three of us must quit meeting like this, people will talk ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, the Overly-bureaucratic Deletion Cabal strikes again! Stalwart111 12:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 27 May 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 is a very incivil comment on the keep side suggesting that some on the delete side "might be harboring racist notions themselves". Comments like that damage the collegiality and good will that is required for Wikipedia to function.

The main argument on the delete side is that the article is a content fork of Anti-Arabism. This has been countered with arguments that not all from the Middle East are Arabs (conversely, not all Arabs are from the Middle East), so it is not entirely obvious that the two articles are covering the same thing even if there might be considerable overlap. Even so, an argument can be made that the sources that mention hatred towards those from the Middle East are really referring to hatred towards Arabs. I took a look at some of the cited sources, [23] and [24], that mention "Middle East" rather than "Arab", and I couldn't truly make my mind up on who is "right" here.

Some of the arguments on the delete side seem superficial (there are many assertions of WP:CONTENTFORK, but rather less evidence, also "I've heard of anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim, but no anti-Middle Eastern." isn't really an argument either.) I also note that the nominator reconsidered his position during the debate.

The issue here remains unresolved, but at the time I cannot really see a firm consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Middle Eastern sentiment[edit]

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

This article is copy/pasted from sections of Anti-Arabism. I do not see any discussion of a split, or any reason why one would be warranted here. However, it does not seem to be unambiguous enough to merit an A10 so I am bringing it here for discussion. VQuakr (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (Gimme a message) @ 09:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 09:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (babble) @ 09:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As you may see all parts of the article are sourced[25]. You should try to fix the links with making them a direct reference instead trying to delete the page. Anti-Arabism and Anti Middle Easterner sentiment are different. Anti-Arabism is more focused on arabs only but anti middle east is about all the middle eastern people.[26] I think instead of deleting these source you would better to fix them by making them direct sources, and why to delete to whole article? any reason?KhabarNegar (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand where you are coming from here - the Anti-Arabism article, when referring to bias occurring outside of the Middle East (especially the USA and Australia - obviously we need to be talking about an area outside of the Middle East for "Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment" to have meaning), does not differentiate between Anti-Arabism, religious discrimination againsts Muslims and Sikhs, and discrimination against people from (or who cosmetically appear to be from) the Middle East such as Iranians and Westerners of Middle Eastern descent. The question is whether it makes sense to have two parallel articles, or whether the scope of Anti-Arabism should be formally expanded (possibly incorporating a title change) to include the scope it already contains. My !vote is still that a single article is merited; if it can be demonstrated that the parallel approach can be done without being a substantial copy then I will consider withdrawing my nomination. VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sad part is that there had been an article on "Middle Eastern" Americans, and it had a small and well written section on the subject. The article was deleted several times. If that article still existed, this article might not ever need to have been created in the first place. The Scythian 20:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr if you respectfully read this article again you will see that there is not a single claim which is related with anti ARAB ISM or anti Islam, Yes in some parts the attacker have used that terms but the reason of actions are all the middle easterner appearances not anything else at all. so this article in its place have no problem being here and not become removed from Wikipedia, because actually there is no reason. Thats It.

Anti-communism, Russophobia, Anti-Slavic sentiment, Anti-Serb sentiment Or we also have Anti-Mexican sentiment & Hispanophobia Or We also have Anti-Christian sentiment, Francophobia, Anti-Western sentiment, Anti-Americanism, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-German sentiment & Anti-Europeanism... So Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, about the concern about having two parallel articles, we may say they are not two parallel articles, they are "completely" different. you may see that right now. in the current article. Please check the sources right now all the events are directly anti middle eastern things and nothing else, Nothing else at all... please check all the events in current article we are talking about and also check their sources. thank you,:) KhabarNegar (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research-ish fork of Anti-Arabism. The article is sourced to [27]; that article does not mention the term "Anti Middle Easterner sentiment". I can't find instances of such a term being used anywhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was written wrong, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL KhabarNegar (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, "Anti Middle Eastern sentiment" does have a few hits. Ping me if this article is rewritten using reliable sources, and I'll consider changing my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no convincing evidence that this article provides anything not already in Anti-Arabism - even though there are reliable sources these terms, they essentially seem to be describing anti-Arab or anti-Muslim sentiment, not a distinct phenomenon.

You are probably not aware of this simple fact, but not everyone who is "Middle Eastern" is an "Arab" nor a "Muslim." Hence the term "Middle Eastern." The Scythian 14:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors of ignorance and bigotry won't get you far - please keep it civil. The point being made is that none of the reliable sources are discussing a form of bigotry that is distinct from anti-arab or anti-muslim bigotry. Until a large number of reliable sources distinguish this as a truly unique phenomenon, then it's not worthy of its own article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on here for years...Not saying your a racist at all. Just pointing out that the article on racism against Arabs, wouldn't relate to such against Iranians, Israelis, Armenians, Turks, etc. We used to have an article on "Middle Eastern" Americans. The article had a good section on discrimination. The entire article on Middle Eastern Americans, a term recognized by the U.S government, was deleted by editors making the exact same arguments as some here. The article on Anti-Iranian sentiment likewise was called for deletion multiple times in the same fashion. This is getting ridiculous...The truth is, racism against Arabs, Muslims, Middle Easterners and South Asians is generally, though not exclusively, all along the same lines. Arab, Muslim and "Middle Easterner" are terms that get thrown around almost interchangeably. Hence, different articles. Society has not chosen an acceptable term for it yet, but as such, a new "group" has indeed become racialised. Either that, or we create an article with one really long name. That doesn't change the fact that there are SOME editors who would just as see not any article of any name be created, in relation to the subject at hand. The Scythian 20:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:FORK as mentioned above.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've heard of anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim, but no anti-Middle Eastern.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd is useless, till no reliable reason provided Why this article should be removed?, See: WP:Poll KhabarNegar (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Some of the "editors" here simply do not believe/wish the subject to exist. I want the article "fixed," and intend to help do so. It's about time someone created(or recreated?)an article on this subject. It had already been touched upon in the old article on Middle Eastern Americans...But alas, that to was deleted. Twice...By people who felt that as a group, they really didn't exist. The Scythian 20:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - Racism against people of Middle Eastern origin in the United States and Europe is a very real phenomenon and undeniable fact. I would imagine that some of those wanting this article deleted, might be harboring racist notions themselves. The Scythian 14:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:NPA and WP:AGF. No one in these AfD has suggested that this subject does not exist, and no one has expressed an interest in censorship. VQuakr (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor already has. People calling for the article to be deleted and not modified = denial that the subject exists. Anyone denying the subject exists, might have a questionable intention. The article badly needs work from the get go, but that is irrelevant here. Just like the article on Talk:Anti-Iranian_sentiment, there is no shortage of relentless editors who do not believe such a subject exists, and intend to have the article deleted to enforce their own world view. That is a fact, and something that an open air encyclopedia like Wikipedia must strongly guard against. The Scythian 20:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (replacing my implicit delete !vote as nominator) and cleanup the split from Anti-Arabism. The article has been expanded significantly from the copy/paste job that existed when I nominated it. The fact is that most of the incidents listed at Anti-Arabism occurring outside of the Middle East probably are examples of Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment (actions which frequently, but only by happenstance are committed against Arabs) as opposed to another Middle Eastern ethnic group. Anti-Arabism probably is a term better reserved for racist actions targeted specifically against Arabs, which I would expect would me more common in places (particularly in the Middle East) where Arabs are part of a mixed Middle Eastern population (examples in the Anti-Arabism article include Iran, Israel, and Niger). In my opinion - for sections in Anti-Arabism about racism in areas such as North America, Great Britain, and Australia - the examples given (whether they happen to be about actions against Arabs or not) belong in Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment, to the point that those sections in Anti-Arabism should be trimmed to a short paragraph with a main tag linking to the appropriate section in Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment.

A couple of final notes - WP:PERF was brought up earlier in the context of "don't worry about repeating information." This is a misapplication of the linked information page. Articles should not contain duplicated information for readability and navigation reasons, not to keep server load low. And, really, stop the accusations of racism. VQuakr (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is original research. Some of it could be salvaged and it would fit better into other articles. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:) Thanks for the help if you sincerely tell me what part of the article "Exactly" is original research? By the way I really loved your edit summary :) [28], "not quite", that was nice. anyway thanks for voting & please let me know what part is original research, and also please try once again may be you will find a little tiny parts of the article which have sources. Thanks again for voting and thanks in advance for letting us know what part is original research to your point of view. Regards, KhabarNegar (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tidied up the page a bit and removed parts that were not relevant. I have no particular opinion on whether or not to delete this. Funny ^Pika! 18:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This doesn't actually exist, the term is "anti-Arabism", the topic of which is already covered at its respective article. This is an unnecessary and unwelcome fork of that, not a standalone, legitimate subject. It seems we go through these sorts of discussions every few months or so, the most recent IIRC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israelophobia, with some of the same users who insist on editing disruptively. It may be time to discuss topic bans elsewhere. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom, since it's been cleaned up somewhat (although it still needs work: more RS and less OR). Miniapolis 02:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This should go back to anti-Arabism because this serves as an unnecessary content fork; it does not seem to be acceptable even under WP:RELART at this point. Yes, the source page needs an overhaul, but their is no need to have two pages dedicated to the same thing under slightly different names. Its like petrol and gasoline, they should not have separate articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:05, 6 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. If nothing else, the sources produced indicate subject meets the general notability guideline. Ours is not to reason why... Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Ross Lee[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards (WP:BIO) and appears to be largely self promotion. The article currently highlights that the subject once flew on a plane with Ashley Olsen, and later Brad Pitt. The notability criteria page specifically states "that person A has a relationship with well-known person B" is not sufficient for the notability threshold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyankee2003 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. The subject in question is a media personality (me) who has been well documented by sources that Wikipedia users appeal to when establishing this very notability. The New York Times, The NY Observer as well as television networks and magazine tabloids attest to this relevancy sufficiently. With respect to (WP:BIO) "that person A has a relationship with well-known person B" - this example is not an unsubstantiated relationship, yet reporting of the facts of what has previously been published by citable media sources. Self promotion is merely a product of this zeitgeist. I can understand this issue being raised but respectfully ask that it be put to peace. -Justin Ross Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinrosslee (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The Joonbug and Social Shark NYC references are blogs, so are not reliable for BLPs. The Hamptons reference is merely a transcript of an interview with the subject talking about himself, thus it's not a reliable third-party source. The Observer reference is just describing the Post articles. Perhaps with better references it might be worth keeping, even if it has started as an apparent promotional autobiography. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for adminship - I agree with Uncle Milty. The two most valid references were never directly or properly cited. The following are new and more reliable sources to uphold the integrity of the article: --| Justin Ross Lee | talk |

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/fashion/justin-ross-lee-party-animal-seeks-fame.html?pagewanted=all

2. http://observer.com/2012/06/meet-the-gatsbabies-preening-prepsters-lure-ladies-lucre-and-limelight-in-merry-manhattan/?show=all — Preceding comment signed as by Justin Ross Lee (talk • contribs) actually added by Justinrosslee (talk • contribs)

Weak delete - only marginally notable, and it's not as if Wikipedia will be worser off without this article. --69.84.112.132 (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak) - It seems like it is well sourced and subject is notable. There are much lesser known subjects on Wikipedia. — 76.109.250.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:47, May 23, 2013‎ (UTC).

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) 08:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the problem here is that, with all due respect to the subject, he is most notable for being a bit of a dick, and we don't have a specific notability criteria for that (having read the source articles, something tells me he won't be offended, don't worry). There's plenty of coverage in reliable sources so I think he passes WP:GNG without too much trouble. Would strongly suggest, though, that the subject start respecting our conflict of interest guidelines and stop editing his own article. Yeah? Stalwart111 13:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully keep – regretfully because the article's self-promotional intent is evident, keep because WP:GNG is clearly satisfied. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:33, 31 May 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 Guerilla marketing. REdirected as - per comments - the content is not an improvement on the target Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrilla marketing warfare strategies[edit]

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

An un-notable concept. There has been a fair amount of literature and research on business-as-warfare, but the exact intersection of guerrilla marketing and warfare (or guerrilla warfare) feels like original research. For what it's worth, the current article reads like an unfocused essay, with very few citations, and not much content that directly relates to the subject matter. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Subvertising, per WP:FORK, or to shockvertising, if you prefer. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:FORK relate to this? Korny O'Near (talk) 12:05, 22 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but I'd suggest Guerrilla marketing as the target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content is not worth merging: badly written, badly referenced, inaccurate, original research, never clearly defines what it's actually about, many of the examples given (e.g. Skoda campaign) are not guerrilla marketing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Collack[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO, only one nom that may not be scene-related, and that one is of dubious significance. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement by IP with only two other edits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails relevant guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 21 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. I can only find passing mentions in reliable sources. Fails PORNBIO with just one award nomination in an individual category. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 1 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 00:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Summers[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO, all award/noms are scene-related. All GNews hits are spurious; no nontrivial GBooks hits. Reliably sourced bio content is negligible. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement by IP without edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as you need to win a notable award personally, not be a participant in a scene that does. 210.7.71.114 (talk) 09:51, 21 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability criteria WP:PORN and WP:GNG. Should undoubtedly be deleted. Finnegas (talk) 21:46, 2 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 00:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best Actor Film Festival[edit]

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

no reliable third party references for this festival. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only references provided are self-referential; it appears that this rump film festival has not yet made it to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 23 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 27 May 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 article underwent significant expansion during the AfD that addressed some of the original rationale for nomination. On the remaining issue of notablity, there is no meeting of the minds pointing to deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Jose[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist, sources used are primary. Article fails WP:AUTHOR. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Checked around for any independent reports, couldn't find any. Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR. 122.176.146.47 (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference of closing nominator, this IP: 122.176.214.231 (talk) is me again. To preclude questions: I'm rarely around on Wikipedia that much any more, tend not to use an account therefore, usually avoid discussions because I'm - well - an Old Wikipedian and know where that can take you.

I'd like to thank Crtew for his work on the article, it looks much better. In fact, that's why I came here, wanting to just reverse my "vote". But I've looked again at the arguments and turns out that, sadly, I'm just not convinced. I explain why below. 122.176.214.231 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nominator is correct that the article as written at present is in a terrible state. However, Vinod Jose is an award-winning journalist. He is also notable for publishing literary, or narrative, journalism within the context of Indian journalism, for several highly-regarded interviews, and for starting a magazine and reestablishing another. He has published journalism in India in both English and Malayalam. The latter makes it difficult to search for that part of his career. I'll be adding some fresh sources to the article. Crtew (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fresh sources added: Plenty of secondary references exist and have been added while the article has been expanded. Among the sources are information about his awards, which satisfies a key factor in establishing notability for WP:Author. His work as a journalist has also been covered, commented on and quoted by his peers, which satisfies another factor. His work in narrative journalism in India makes him important.Crtew (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are just two sources for the awards: Asia Society, Institute for War & Peace Reporting.

The article still fails to assert notability and the sources that you have added fail WP:RS. Other sources are WP:PRIMARY or at best transient mentions of the subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE-1 Notability is asserted clearly in that he is an editor and author at India's only narrative magazine, which is a niche fulfilled by Granata or The New Yorker in the west.Crtew (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE-2 ALL sources DO NOT fail. That assertion is wrong. Example: Jose was central to the case involving access to Kalanithi Maran's company's records, a private limited company, as he was filing a "right to know" petition, which is a key tool of investigative reporters. See: NDTV, Times of India, India Express. By far, his most widely published work was the 2006 exclusive interview with Mohammad Afzal Guru, which was even translated into Italian "AL PATIBOLO INSIEME ALLA VERITÀ", Radicali Italiani di Vinod K. Jose by way of La Stampa. Furthermore, where sources were questioned, other sources were provided that corroborate. I acknowledge that it is difficult to search for his work or about his work during his Malayalam-language period.Crtew (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE-Furthermore, I would even say that about his mentions in The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, that it is remarkable as his magazine is distributed physically only in India and Nepal. Crtew (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So he filed an Right to Information application which was reported in the news? The articles are about the CIC and the RTI application itself, not the subject of this article. Please see WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I still do not see as to how the subject qualifies. Additionally, he was not the only person to interview Afzal Guru, there were several others. The magazine that you have linked to the Italian Radicals is a non-notable magazine that has an article on itself similarly based on primary and non-reliable sources. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said (see above) by way of La Stampa, which is a major national newspaper in Italy. The La Stampa article is archived and it is still searchable and retrievable through commercial databases. Crtew (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - In answer to these arguments. Re-1: No, "Indian equivalents" are not automatically notable, unless they are *actually* equivalents -- i.e. the editor has notability equivalent to David Remnick. That argument is not made here, because the Caravan is not a magazine with either the reach or the notability of the New Yorker. Note also he is *not* the editor, per the magazine masthead here: [29] ; he is the executive editor, and number 3 in the hierarchy. This major Indian paper did a story on the magazine without mentioning him at all: [30].

The statement is not that it is an equivalent but that it is the only magazine filling that niche in India, which sets publication apart. Of course articles can be written about the magazine that don't mention him at all and the WP article says that he is the executive editor and a contributing writer. The livemint article is a very good piece about the publishing company behind the magazine!Crtew (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the Mint story is that it was essentially about the Caravan and its placement and didn't even talk about Jose, but about the two seniormost editors according to the masthead, which goes to how much of the magazine's notability spills over onto him. Further, whether a publication is "set apart" does not mean that one of its editors is notable. There is perhaps a single motoring magazine in India, but its editor is not notable. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-2: The filing of a "right to information" request is definitely non-notable. Thousands are filed every year; most news stories in India today are built on the back of such "RTI" requests. Many of them push the envelope in such a way, and cause differing interpretations from the Information Commission, as the law is very new and still being worked out. Crtew (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that he got significant coverage and in reliable sources for his reporting as the case not only concerned a prominent individual with connections but it involved a private and not a public company.

No, the precedent set got coverage, not the nature of his reporting, so it doesn't add to his notability. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-3: It is far from surprising he is mentioned in the blogs of the NY Times and the WSJ etc. These are *Specifically* India-focused blogs, INdia Ink and India Real Time. They do weekly round-ups of articles; once a fortnight the NYT's does a specifically "long reads" edition visible here: [31], [32], [33]. The numbering indicates 60 long-reads roundups so far in a couple of years. It is hardly surprising that an article by Jose has been mentioned in one of them and it does not in any way indicate notability. It is a curation/aggregation service being provided by bloggers for the NYT website, in short, not a regular RS. 122.176.214.231 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a typical blog as the writer is actually a journalist working under the editorial supervision of the publication. The source is reliable and meets standard verification principles. The Guardian site is by an Indian author who writes regularly for the British newspaper. Crtew (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, they are blog posts that are meant to aggregate the week's articles -- as such they provide no notability. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails [WP:AUTHOR]]. No secondary sources. Fai zan 08:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What version were you looking at? Crtew (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems at present the claim to notability rests on awards. Which aren't really that. Since one is a single "honourable mention" among many and one is a scholarship. The only remaining thing, therefore, is one award from the Asia Society of New york. In any case, and most importantly, a random award is explicitly not part of WP:AUTHOR. There are dozens of journalism prizes out there, and that's why it isn't considered notable if you win one unless the prize itself is notable, like the Pulitzer. The "secondary" sources mentioned discuss individual stories and consist mainly of blog roundups of notable stories of that period. So that isn't useful either. Essentially, it is difficult to find any journalist of any experience who has written one or two stories about which an analogous article could not be written. Which is why this needs to be deleted. 210.7.71.114 (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, he stands up quite well to the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Author#Creative_professionals. For Point 1. The awards and mentions come from organizations that are themselves listed in Wikipedia and those awards carry weight. Nobody said they were a Pulitzer, but how many Indian journalists have won the primarily Western-focused award? If you look at the criteria for awards and notability, you will see that the criteria speaks to repeatedly winning or being nominated for awards. For Point 2. The Caravan is pioneering narrative journalism in India, and this is a sourced, and Jose's role in the magazine is also established. And for Point 4: His peers in journalism do write about his work. The blogs you dismiss are from The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Moreover, his other journalism was widely reprinted and translated and even his reporting about media ownership was covered in the national newspapers in India.Crtew (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Nobody is denying Caravan is notable. But that does not mean its executive editor is immediately notable himself. Please note I have already answered the claim about the NYT etc. Do all the thousands of other Indian journalists linked, with their work excerpted in the NYT's "newswallah" blog also qualify under this criterion? Clearly not. I don't know about the awards -- or award, according to the earlier comment -- being notable, but I quite agree one award of unknown notability is not enough to confer notability on a journalist, espeically since it is apparently specifically excluded from the notability criteria for journalists. Fails WP:AUTHOR still and should still be deleted. But I commend Crtew on his efforts. 122.176.214.231 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He is the executive editor of an important magazine and is often quoted in other news articles (cf. this). --regentspark (comment) 12:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being quoted as an industry participant in an article about an industry does not confer notability. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than that. Eg. [34]. I agree that he weakly satisfies four criteria (exec. ed., quoted, awards, and the case quoted by crtew above) but 4 weaks should make a keep. --regentspark (comment) 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that the number of times his interview with Mulakat Afzal Guru has been translated and reprinted from 2006 to 2013 contributes to the importance of his work. This argument has often been used in AfDs about authors but it's hardly ever used in the case of a journalist. Crtew (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: My recent changes on Vinod Jose where I removed several unreliable sources have been reverted by User:Crtew. The closing administrator should review the changes made and subsequently reverted. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on talk, Sir Nick deleted trade publication sources as not reliable. In fact, trade journalists are more informative than journalists who write for the masses as they are often experts and they are writing for an informed audience. I dispute calling these types of sources unreliable. Sir Nick also deleted pointers from a newsletter but not the newsletter itself, even where I had already indicated that additional citations were needed. Yes, I reversed these. Crtew (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Sir Nick has put down the primary sources template. There are actually plenty of secondary sources in the article. Crtew (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly, for the sake of this discussion, list out the secondary and reliable sources used in the article over here so that they may be discussed one by one? Thanks for commenting here. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy: There is a basic difference between an AfD page and a Talk Page. You're asking to turn an AfD page into a talk page.Crtew (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am asking you to discuss the secondary and reliable sources that you claim to have introduced into the article. Since we apparently disagree on their quality, reliability and secondary nature, these few sources are relevant for discussion on the AfD page for the benefit of the closing administrator. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More important here is the decision about whether the contents of the following article about his Malayalam period can be used as a source: For a Free Press I am not in disagreement with Sir Nick that CounterCurrents is a WP:SPS. However, legitimate articles get published in CounterCurrents from other RSs. A good example of this occurs in this archived discussion at the WP:RS noticeboard.[35] So the point is that the article from The Meantime published July 20, 2005 could be a RS that would back up several points of notability. 1) Youngest founder of a registered magazine Free Press (magazine) 2)In giving us a fuller picture of his long term reporting on the 2001 Parliament bombing and cases. He already covered the attack while at the Indian Express (We do know from a reliable source he was interrogated about his coverage of suspects and then went on to do his now famous interview with Afzal Guru.) In fact, his career up to that point and all dates are included. 3) Free Press was harassed because of its investigative journalism and closed, which makes this a Freedom of Press issue. The article that appeared in The Meantime is one of the important sources in determining Jose's notability. For now it's in external links as it needs to be located or verified (in my opinion) to use it as a valid source. Crtew (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: The Mean Time was definitely in English! The Mean Time was a registered publication in India (The Office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India). This we know from public records:

Title: MEAN TIME
Registration number: 69702
Title code: KARENG01713
Owner: M/S.ALTERNATIVE MEDI
Address: A PVT.LTD.,3/6 II FLOOR, B.S.A ROAD,MASJID STREET,BANGALORE
Pub_city: KERALA
District: BANGALORE
VRF Dates: 8/3/1995
State: KAR
Language: English
Periodicity: OP
Publisher: P.C. HAMZAH

I've asked WP:RX for help.Crtew (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This notice of publication appeared in print: "New magazine launched" The Tribune (India), Tuesday, February 2, 1999. And another bio at a political party also says Hamzah published Meantime. Crtew (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Additional fresh sources included: Vinod K. Jose's article on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh received additional attention when the Washington Post posted a correction on behalf of its reporter for using two quotes from the Jose's article in The Caravan without properly acknowledging their origin and making it appear as if the reporter had interviewed Singh's representatives when he had not. This issue received additional widespread attention. It had already been selected by the faculty of the Columbia University Journalism School and jury as one of 100 Great Stories written by its alumni. And, of course, this paragraph includes more secondary sources! Crtew (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call for any Wikipedians with knowledge of Malayalam: I've seen this before with Malayalam journalists in AfD. They are at a huge disadvantage in AfDs because sources in Malayalam language, as well as other languages with non-latin script, are not easily accessible with Google or traditional search tools. I have found a couple that need translation in external links. However, if someone with more knowledge than me could search for additional sources, it would be appreciated. There is a hole: This source NYFP says he was "the youngest editor in India when he started a magazine, the Free Press." That was a Malayalam magazine. Also if anybody could find the orginal source for this [article] would help. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related: The same nominator has also put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Press (magazine), founded by Vinod K. Jose, up for an AFD. Crtew (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having failed myself to find much beyond his own journalism when I edited the article and talk page prior to this nomination, I've been impressed by what Crtew has turned up since this AfD started. I lean more to the deletionist view when it comes to AfDs generally but there is enough present now to verify that this person is notable in his own right. I've watched the article develop since the nomination and while some sources that are now shown are better than others, the overall effect is compelling. WP:AUTHOR is satisfied because of things such as the number of times his major stories have been quoted but, even if people argued otherwise, that guideline does not trump WP:GNG. My suspicion is that there may well be more out there in non-English sources and this is the only reason why I did not nominate the thing for deletion when I did my own work on it. Crtew deserves a very substantial pat on the back for their efforts. - Sitush (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, essentially per WP:HEY. Significant secondary source coverage is sufficiently demonstrated. — Cirt (talk) 06:46, 26 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to allow discussion of the expansion/rewrite. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Not a notable journalist. Article fails WP:AUTHOR. Jussychoulex (talk) 19:24, 29 May 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. Some arguments were made for merging with Hungarian dialects, but the article has no sourced content to merge. I'll make a redirect after deletion, though. Angr (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Székely language[edit]

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

Original research, hoax, according to ISO 639-2 there is no separate language for Székely people, a well-known Hungarian subgroup. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. It's a disputed article and now there is a debate now on the talk page. Hortobagy (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a very likely hoax; unless someone can prove based on reliable scholarly sources that there is a considerable academic consensus regarding a separate "Székely language", which is not simply a minor dialect of the Hungarian. Several editors have asked for such academic proofs on the Talk page of the article, but non were provided. Only evading answers were given (like the one above: "This is not true"). This seriously questions the reason for existence of the article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep This is the kind of article that can be renamed Controversy of Székely language but in any case, I would strongly keep the current article as it is. Hortobagy (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in this article is based on reliable sources, therefore there is no controversy around the "Székely language". Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be more of a misunderstanding than a hoax. This book (Rona-Tas, Andras (1999). Hungarians and Europe in the early Middle Ages: an introduction to early Hungarian history. Central European University Press.) discusses "Szekely runiform writing" and the origins of the written language. Here are some selections from the book and "Reply #4" on this blog (an unreliable source) quote some of the book more extensively (I bring up the blog so you can read more of the book). It seems that the relevant question to answer is the definition of language that English Wikipedia is using. - tucoxn\^talk 00:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- English Wikipedia doesn't use "language" to refer to writing systems. Also see my response here. — Lfdder (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources has been provided on the existence of a separate Székely language. Róna-Tas in his above cited book does not refer to it, he writes of the Székely script (which is an existing script, but not a language) Borsoka (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strongly Keep.~~ We need articles. We need to create new articles. This is the case like Flemish language and other languages. It's a political, very sensible issue. Hortobagy (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has potential, if rewritten, to be an article, but then it should be moved to Székely dialect. bogdan (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I cannot understand your above logic: why do you think that an article which cannot be substantiated by reliable sources "has potential"? Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Székely being a language may not be substantiated by reliable sources, but there's plenty of sources calling it a "dialect". bogdan (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence for Szekely language. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Szekely or Old Hungarian script has its own article. However there is no evidence for spoken Szekely language. "....Szeklers speak dialects of Hungarian that are also found in the Southern and Western part of the old Hungarian Kingdom; there is no evidence to prove they speak a different language"[36] I cite academic Laszlo Makkai[37]: "....And the only information we have concerning the Székely people indicates that they spoke the same Finno-Ugric tongue. The names of their clans, clan branches, and social units are of Hungarian origin, as are all the toponyms they applied in their area of settlement....Thus even if the Székelys once spoke a Turkic tongue, they must have given it up in favour of Hungarian at an early date. The Székely dialect contains no more Bulgaro-Turkish loan-words from before the Hungarian conquest than does standard Hungarian....." We can only speak about Hungarian Szekely dialect. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like other people have said above. — Lfdder (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence proven that this language exists; I'm willing to WP:AGF and assume it was just a big misunderstanding by the article creator. At least, for now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suggest that the results of this review should automatically be apply to the recently created Szekely language article (for the time being a redirection page) as well. Borsoka (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Székely dialect". Proper name, as per Gbook hits.--Zoupan 14:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Székely dialect, per Zoupan and Fakirbakir, or merge with Hungarian dialects, per Bogdangiusca. I've read enough about the Székelys to understand the situation. We have lots of articles about dialects, and this one seems to be distinct enough for a stand-alone article, or as a big chuck of the dialects article. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the content of the article itself is very poor and false, not to mention its style, grammar and its unsourced and OR parts. Thus not only the title of the article is wrong. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the subject of this discussion is this specific article with a title which cannot be substantiated by reliable sources and with text made up by OR; therefore, this specific article cannot be moved if we take into account WP:NOR. Yes a new article could be created on the Székely dialects based on reliable sources, but it is an other story. Borsoka (talk) 05:18, 22 May 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. Variety of opinions, but no rough consensus to delete, and at least one editor is attempting to improve the article further. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Él (visual novel)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Él (visual novel)

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

Contested Prod as "not being valid", this article fails per WP:N no references or third party sources to be found. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There was one review of the anime by a reliable source [38], [39] (the second link if for a rerelease of the anime, with some parts of the review being new and some being the same as the old review). I checked for other sources but didn't find any. However, I've only checked the English language sources that I know of, and don't know if there might be Japanese sources available (such as perhaps magazines that review games like this). Also, according to the Japanese Wikipedia article, the 2000 game that our article is about is a remake of a 1991 game called ELLE. If the article is kept, then someone should probably rewrite it to mention the original game, and not just the remake. Calathan (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This runs afoul of WP:POINT and I intend to fix this article as proof that Lucia Black's deletion campaign is disruptive. This has placed an unfair deadline on editors to bring this up to par, but I'll bite because the Japanese Wiki has superior coverage, but has radically different citation standards. This will pass when I am done. This is my start version [40]. I'll update after conducting some work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, you've added one source, Animetric.com, that has been widely discussed and repeatedly found to not be a reliable source. I've argued in the past that I thought Animetric could be considered a reliable source previously, when companies would send the site owner copies of anime to review and then sometimes quote any positive comments from the reviews on the packaging of anime. However, the review you cited is from after the domain and old reviews were sold to someone else, who has as far as I know never gotten any attention from any anime company. The majority of people in past discussions thought the site wasn't reliable even before it was sold, so I can't see any way it could be considered reliable now. It is really just the opinion of one person on the Internet with nothing to make it at all realiable. Please as you are attempting to source the article, try to only use sources that are reliable, or at least avoid sources that have specifically been discussed and found to be unreliable (some of which are listed at WP:A&M/RS#Unreliable. Calathan (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer's opinion is acceptable according to WP:RSOPINION, because the source is reliable for the individual's statement. I used it because it balances the positive review and that is also adhering to NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was writing my reply to you on the article talk page at the same time as you were writing this here, so please see my reply there. Calathan (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. Not currently notable, but let's give ChrisGualtieri some time to improve it. 1292simon (talk) 10:53, 23 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's apparently an anime based on it, and it has an entry at ja wiki. The coverage in a print source (The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917) suggests it may be notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Anime Encyclopedia covered almost every commercially released anime created up to the time it was written. I don't think it shows notability for most of the works covered, as the authors were not being selective about which works they covered. For things that they gave longer than normal entries to, I think it could be an indication of notability, but Él didn't get a particularly long entry. Calathan (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the entry may not be long, the book as noted in this ANN review [41] points out a few titles are missing. The work is indeed informative, but also presents a rather strong bias to adult titles that likely stems from Clements' previous work. I've updated with the Japanese content and got the original 1991 box art on the article now. Just a reminder, I can't translate Japanese yet, I'm at N5 which is useless for this sort of thing. For focus on RSes, I presume they exist, but its been 22 years since it released pre-internet boom on a type of computer which is itself so poorly covered despite its massive critical success over superior products. Eroge games actually cemented the PC-98 series according to quite a few sources, but the content from the era is obscure now and has to be duly researched at libraries and through old magazines. My research allows me to correct and improve content in a variety of areas, fixing old established myths and surpassing the Japanese coverage at times, but this is one case where Japanese sources are absolutely required. At this point, it should not be deleted, the worst possible outcome would be a push into Elf, which is also a poorly represented article. Though I'm certain plenty more exists on this now obscure work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 27 May 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. If someone wants to merge either page I will userfy it to them, J04n(talk page) 01:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Presbytery - Cumberland Presbyterian Church[edit]

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

This is not a separate denomination, and presbyteries are not generally notable. St Anselm (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Japan Presbytery - Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for exactly the same reason. St Anselm (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Not seeing any solid sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both with their parent churches. Plausible search terms and real institutions. JASpencer (talk) 21:36, 17 May 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 May 18. Snotbot t • c » 20:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent denominations. They appear to be constituted merely as branches of US churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 22 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the parent article. They're just branches of churches in the US and thus have no individual notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of available reliable third-party sources fails WP:ORG. The reformiert-online.net directory does not seem to be an RS, though the creator of the article uses it on almost every article they create. Novaseminary (talk) 02:26, 2 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mage UK[edit]

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

Not a notable company, article relies upon single source - the company's own website which is now defunct, company apparently no longer even exists. Laval (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I performed an internet search and found only the Wikipedia article. The company website does not exist anymore. This subject does not seem to have any notability. If there is any info out there, now is the time to present it. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The frequency of red-links suggests it is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 30 May 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 University of Canterbury. ~~Will userfy to whoever wants to perform the merge.~~ J04n(talk page) 01:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The page's history is intact, if anyone wants to merge to the parent article or create a list of residence halls please feel free to do so. J04n(talk page) 20:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester and Rutherford Hall[edit]

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

Not notable. Only source is a primary one. Adabow (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Wikiproject New Zealand In general, non-notable topics with primary sources, on topics that are already covered in the encyclopedia, are not appropriate for deletion. Possible outcomes are to keep this article as a spin off of University of Canterbury, merge to a list of residence halls of the University of Canterbury, merge to University of Canterbury, and redirect without merger to University of Canterbury. This decision is a function of who is willing to do the work; and if no one volunteers in say, 30 days, there is an easy choice here, the redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admin request Reading the talk page history indicates that part of the attribution history for the article is missing. I request that an admin restore any missing attribution history. Unscintillating (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article history has been restore as a contested prod. GB fan 21:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the old text used? The article was completely rewritten when it was recreated in October 2006. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand either what you are asking or what question you want answered. I've already documented that article history was missing above. I don't have access to admin tools. Unscintillating (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The common term is "page history" or "edit history". Writing "missing attribution history" seems to invoke wmf:Terms of Use or WP:Copying within Wikipedia. WP:Proposed deletion is reversed for any reason, but I do not see a good reason to restore, as the deleted revisions were not used. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then based on my request, an admin could have said "there is no attribution history missing, only edit history". But that would not have resolved the problem. Unscintillating (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Canterbury - nothing remarkable on its own. NealeFamily (talk) 05:53, 2 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bench trending[edit]

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

Neologism. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Phrase gets all of 396 Google hits, none of which explain what this allegedly is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism As per nom, very little reliable sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:GNG; I can not find significant coverage for this term. Gong show 20:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reynier Village, Los Angeles[edit]

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

No claim of notability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to South Robertson, Los Angeles - Needs significant improvement, but does appear to be a distinct neighborhood of Los Angeles, at least to some degree. See [42], [43], [44], etc. There might not be enough to write a separate article, in which case it should probably be merge/redirected with the larger neighborhood. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - cleaned it up a bit; added a couple of references. Stalwart111 06:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I previously found all the sources which have been placed in the article as well, but they do not convince me that this place exists. Let's take them in order. First, the Reynier Village Association is formed in 2005 per their website. They have photos of signs on their streetlights marking their neighborhood. These are *not* official city signs, they're just something the neighborhood council gives permission to put up. Second we have this 2006 article from the real estate section of the LA times. Note first that this is right after the neighborhood association was formed, and so when they would have been pushing the hardest to get the name into use. Note also the equivocation of the author, who says "Real estate agents have long described the area as "Beverlywood adjacent" or "south Robertson," but the name Reynier Village is starting to catch on. Activists have revived the Reynier Village Neighborhood Assn., an informal group that alerts residents to developments by e-mail and distributes fliers about meetings and other happenings." This proves that it's the neighborhood association that's pushing the name and that no one else uses it. See how sceptical the reporter is? If even Los Angeles real estate agents and their boot-licking side-pocket reporters for the LAT Real Estate section are reluctant to use a name it casts even more doubt on its reality. Those people manufacture neighborhood names while they're driving to the supermarket just for kicks. Furthermore, it seems that it did not catch on because there are no mentions of this place in the media at all after this article, with one exception that I will now consider. Finally we come to the 2012 KCET blog source. Aha! one says, this is from 2012, so it appears as if the name is catching on. However, note that this is in the KCET blog, and that the blog post is *sponsored*, i.e. it is not editorial content, and furthermore, that the sole sponsor of the South Robertson section of this blog, which the Reynier Village section is a subpage of, is the South Robertson Neighborhood Council. The SOCO is an quasi-official city/private group that the RVNA is a member of, so the blog is not an independent source. If anyone outside this boosterish neighborhood group or their financial had ever used the term without qualification in the last 7 years I'd be much more OK with it, but they have not. Even *they* couldn't get it into print between 2006 and 2012 and they're spending money trying to do it. By the way, there are also two mentions in other papers, not worth listing, where a person is described as a resident of the place. Both are from 2005/6 as well, so I assume that they founded the RVNA, tried to get other people to call their subdivision that, and failed. Thus, delete.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The neighborhood does seem to exist and to have some notability. The article has been substantially improved since being nominated. A full article in the Los Angeles Times, by a staff reporter, is halfway to notability all by itself - whether or not we accept the reporter's motivation or tone in writing the article. One more such source and I would change from Weak Keep to Keep. Also, note that the Reynier Village Association was "revived" (per the Times article) in 2005, rather than invented at that time; clearly the name predated the revival. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now believe it should be kept. More sources indicate Notability. As for "boot lickers" (above), Martha Groves was a general-assignment reporter (though she seemed to concentrate on the "better" areas of the Westside) and she did not work for the real-estate section, to my knowledge. The piece by Yosuke Kitazawa was, yes, sponsored (revenues have truly fallen for KCET and the Times), but he is a staff writer and I believe his report was vetted in the editorial chain of command and not through the advertising department. Check out these links. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meh— I stand by my view that this is not a real neighborhood. However, I have no wish to argue the point with my esteemed colleagues and will therefore strike my delete so that the nominator may withdraw the AfD if he now wishes to.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:35, 27 May 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 00:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joomdle[edit]

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

Non-notable website. FallingGravity (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, WP:WEB, etc. Gong show 20:45, 27 May 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 Centre for Fortean Zoology. L Faraone 00:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CFZ Press[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any coverage in reliable third party sources, and certainly not any that's independent of the books published or the Centre for Fortean Zoology itself. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 21 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 passing mentions in gnews (including its own website) is not enough. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Centre for Fortean Zoology. Insufficient notability for the publications arm in its own right. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AllyD. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:00, 28 May 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) 06:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden Capital Advisors[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. created by a single purpose editor. nothing in gnews despite its grand claims. [45]. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The "sources" are simply WP:ROUTINE business announcements - "subject hires x" - some of which seem like an attempt at inheriting notability from particular executives or their former employer. Other sources are company press releases or the company's own website. One or two of the sources that (based on the title alone) might have some WP:N value are behind paywalls. More than happy to consider those if someone can let us know what they actually say, but if they are anything like the others, I don't hold out much hope. Stalwart111 01:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As things stand I am seeing nothing beyond April 2012 announcements of the company being established and its aspirations, plus later recruitment announcements. These do not seem sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH verification of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:CORP and per Stalwart111 - the sources look like routine announcements. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:12, 27 May 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 00:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of second level domain suffixes[edit]

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

per this discussion at TfD, WP is not a DNS, and the information has mechanism for staying complete and current. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 21 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This list would never actually be complete, it would be very long (there are thousands of second-level domains in .com and .org alone), and it doesn't seem to have any depth to it. Pretty much any SLD that would be notable would be an Internet services company with its own page. -lee (talk) 02:31, 27 May 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. WP:HEY WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March Against Monsanto[edit]

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

Does not establish notability. A poorly formatted list of cities. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

~~Delete~~ - Not likely to be fixable. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC) It's assumed you support deletion, because you nominated it for deletion. Stalwart111 01:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]
~~Did this come to attention because I edited it? Aaanyway~~ I have no idea what it is and well it's a protest, we get thousands of those all of the time, so I'm voting Delete ~~and stating I only added a subsection. Of course this could be a completely different article to the one I'm thinking about... Eh.~~ MM (What's up pup?) - ^{(Chocolate Cakes ◕‿◕)} 01:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though COI accounts have been adding meaningless unsourced charts and promotional language, a Google search confirms broad media coverage of a worldwide story. Can be cleaned up and improved with multiple references. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Here we go again Notability being used. Millions of people protested this Global Corporate and yet Wikipedia feels its not Notable. There were protest, and yes News Coverage (except for the Main Stream media which seemed to have clamped it all under a News and media Blackout not one American Network covered it yet BBC, Russians, Germans, Japanese, and Australian Organizations DID cover it) . Strong Keep because this protest march was covered on more than 3 continents, by several newspapers. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't that "Wikipedia feels its not Notable", as if a conspiracy is involved, but about editors discussing notability in WP:GOODFAITH. Stalwart111's point below is well taken; though I've voted keep, I realize that this may be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS, and respect that rationale. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~~Weak delete~~ - I think it was created in good faith but nonetheless seems to serve simply as a WP:PROMO for a WP:NOBLECAUSE; in this case a single event, but held by multiple groups in multiple places. Does that WP:EVENT have a lasting WP:EFFECT? Not really convinced it does. The alternative is that we consider this "loose collective" as an organisation and ask whether it passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Not really convinced it does. I'm open to being convinced but I would probably need more beyond simple proof of its existence. Stalwart111 01:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Stalwart on everything except the "weak" delete. All we have are reports from the organizers about their intention that "millions" would protest and that those protests would be global, repeated by the AP which was echoed throughout the press. This may turn out to be the start of something big but right now it is a very well promoted, one day event, with the nice story of this starting from a single user on Facebook. I was hoping some mainstream news would have picked this up but it does not seem to have bee NOTABLE enough. So, delete, for now. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unique global event, plenty of room for expansion, unlikely to get very much space on the Monsanto article itself. groupuscule (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point of comparison: "Rally to Restore Sanity" was half rally, half satire; only took place in the United States; had 215,000 attendees; and was organized by a TV network. It has a long page that has earned "Good Article" status. The M.A.M. concerns a topic of global interest; took place in numerous cities, in numerous countries; involved 2,000,000 people; and had numerous organizers. Undeniable. groupuscule (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there was a significant response to that event (required per WP:EFFECT). We have no idea of knowing what the effect of this event might be, which is why it probably shouldn't have been created on the day of the event and which is why there are WP:NOTNEWS problems. And the 2 million attendees figure has been confirmed by who? Organisers? So far there's been claims of a couple of thousand, if that, and no verification so far (from what I can see). Stalwart111 04:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Stewart/Colbert rally had a page in place well before it actually occurred. And was never even nominated for deletion.
In a quick search of news sources, I haven't seen any that have made an independent tally of attendees at all rallies. "Two million" may be an organiser number... but ABC reports it as fact... this source says "millions"... and hundreds of local newspapers report "thousands" in their area. So, yeah, it seems like it was definitely really big?
I second the idea by RoryBowman, below, that we might at least wait to assess future coverage. The Comedy Central rally received that treatment also.<3, groupuscule (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't strongly disagree with any of that really - all fair points. I suppose my thinking is that I likely would have !voted for deletion in any pre-event AfD for the Colbert/Stewart rally had it been nominated, per WP:NOTNEWS. It's not our job to report on current or very recent events - we're not the New York Times. We (after the fact) provide an encyclopaedic account of important events. This may well end up being one of those, but I disagree with the idea of creating place-holder articles for events that might one day be considered notable. Even if that day is sometime next week. Stalwart111 06:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please keep the page. The media around the world is really strange ignoring the events held in over 30 countries and over 300 cities. The people are fighting for their rights for safe food against corporations who tried to mess with nature with toxins DNA, toxic herbicides and control food via patents, the involved bio-tech corporations, biased interested investors and speculators, plus hired PR companies are trying to silent it, remove it from the public. The page itself will also under some attack who want to cover it up or twisted the information to minimize harm to their dirty business. If the page is deleted, then it is obvious someone inside Wikipedia have biased interest, too. There are people who have stocks and or funds invested heavily in bio-techs, food manufacturing conglomerates, supermarket conglomerates, etc. Do people still have the sense of justice to do the right thing for the exploited public? Or, at least, allow actual events leave their mark in the Wikipedia? 218.102.187.145 (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion will be decided by WP:CONSENSUS and the weight of policy-based contributions from editors. Claiming some form of "bias" or "conflict of interest" on the part of those suggesting deletion doesn't help your cause. If you want it kept, I suggest you put forward a policy-based argument for keeping the article, rather than a broad attack on anyone who might think this doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Stalwart111 03:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sufficient for now, likely to flesh out with time. Occupy Wall Street took some time to gain traction. If this merits deletion, it will merit deletion in a year, and no resources are saved by deleting it now. Rorybowman (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait and see per Rory. Protection could be useful to stave off the COI-SPA assault, though I know this isn't quite the right venue to request that. Ansh666 08:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Robert, the article has changed since you nominated. Could you take a look at it again? I'm not trying to get you to withdraw, I'm just letting you know that it is being worked on. Ansh666 08:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the article has improved. I am not withdrawing the nomination for deletion, but it appears that after seven days there will be consensus to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is notable, as demonstrated by a quick look on Gnews. Content issues not a reason to delete. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 million people protest... http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/2-million-march-in-50-countries-against-monsanto.html wikipedians have to create an article similar to this one according to me: 15 October 2011 global protests. Likemonkeys (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This has coverage from, let's see, the Toronto Star, Huffington Post, CTV, International Business Times, ABC, Aljazeera, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Russia Today, NASDAQ, Fox Business, The Guardian, and that's from just a brief search looking for news sources I recognize the names of. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you some of those links actually reported on what happened - the rest are either pre-march (repeating the AP story) or parrots. The useful ones are: HuffPost, CTV, ABC (although the "1000s" seems pretty loose based on the video they show), ~~WashPost~~. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC) (correction, WashPost is just the AP story again, same as HuffPost. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

Coverage is diverse, but not in depth, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing does not meet WP:INDEPTH. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable international protests. Arguments to delete seem strained in my view. Jus da fax 19:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have given no argument here. You merely state it is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Broad international protest with broad international press coverage. If Monsanto was less notable, the event could perhaps be adequately covered there. However, that is not the case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be significant coverage of the event. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 22:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP for God's sake! This is clearly more than a list, although it's a bit sparse at the moment. Research, rewrite and expand but do NOT delete. It would compromise Wikipedia's political neutrality if what many would see as blatant censorship was to go ahead. Vox Humana 8' 02:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's certainly notable, given the turnout and press coverage. "In depth coverage" will come, it's only been two days for goodness sake. It seems strange to suggest deletion so fast. Monsanto would sure be happy if the page were deleted, but hopefully their wishes don't govern Wikipedia content. petrarchan47 t c 04:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only been two days for goodness sake; it seems strange (given WP:NOTNEWS) to suggest creation so fast. And I think you're about the 5th person to suggest a normal (fairly routine and bureaucratic) deletion discussion is some form of "Monsanto conspiracy". Stalwart111 05:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a 2 million people protest with worldwide, extensive coverage. WP:NOTNEWS mainly refers to routine news and this does not seem a routine event. At best, I suggest to review the article in one year for judging if it deserves to be a separate topic or it should be merged to Monsanto, but it already passes the WP:GEOSCOPE test (La Stampa, La Repubblica, Excelsior, El Paìs, MDZ Online, Le Devoir, Euronews, Québec Hebdo, Инвестор etc etc etc). Cavarrone (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 Million is what the organisers say, 200,000 is what the other sources say. Where is in the in depth coverage? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends which sources you refer, I have read in multiple reliable sources, in the same articles' titles, they were about/over 2 million people. And I bet the absolute majority of the sources reports this number. Even if it is not the truth. Cavarrone 14:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason that is an essay and no longer part of WP:V; we actually care about the truth. It's a common myth that we care about verifiability above the truth. I've not seen ones that say 2 million and speculating is a little odd. Now I imagine that many sources are pretty much press releases regurgitated, but lets not kid ourselves and pretend it was 2 million, when independent people who actually took the time for an estimate say 200k. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie could me provide these sources that say they were 200k? You have still not showed any of them. That said, your argument remains just a speculation: many sources are pretty much press releases regurgitated, but other no. As Le Monde, Washington Times, Forbes and dozens of other VERY reliable sources report this number, your concerns don't bother me one bit in the least. Cavarrone 05:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is Interesting The most interesting man in the world (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this some joke based on your username? Because it's an empty argument, and one to avoid. WP:N has nothing to do with a topic being interesting. Ibadibam (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith Sheldon The most interesting man in the world (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable international event. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC) """[reply]
Strong Keep It's a NGO group, and it was an event. We could change the page to turn it into info on the NGO and what they do and their events. It shouldn't be deleted. It would be like deleting the page on Greenpeace. --Trulystand700 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being an NGO and an event does not make something notable. Comparing it to greenpeace is a little spurious in terms of sourcing. I can easily find many in depth sources about greenpeace. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A global protest with a decent number of protesters. Received press coverage in my country, which doesn't even have GM crops[46] (although admittedly only in a local paper). AIRcorn (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Process questions moved to AFD talk page by Stalwart111 03:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worth keeping, plus the movement sounds like it may be more than just a one-day march. Gandydancer (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International event, - deletion would be an act of censorship.Ekem (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Notable event with grassroots beginning, and the article seems to have been fleshed out a bit since this deletion discussion began, and I see there is some reasonable discussion at the talkpage. Moreover, the event seems like part of a bigger picture of protest against Monsanto and GMOs which has been slowly building. As the march/movement/article name is inherently POV ('against'), editors will need to exercise careful judgment but I assume the wiki community is up to the task. El duderino ^(abides) 05:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep' Vast international event, with millions of participants! With good reliable sources, not a single reason to delete but attempt to censor Wiki and use it as political propaganda tool. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It did look like this when it was nominated, so I doubt it was attempt at censorship. AIRcorn (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users can be forgiven for fearing a "conspiracy" to "censor" this article, given the state of dozens of other articles related to this topic. Articles like Genetically modified food controversies, Genetic engineering, Monsanto, Genetically modified food, Séralini affair and numerous others, display a strongly pro-GM point of view. The group of users that works on (all of) these pages maintains that this point of view is the most neutral, based on academic research. Maybe so. Maybe "GM is safe" is scientifically akin to heliocentrism (as opposed to geocentrism) But the slant is undeniable in either case. groupuscule (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's more a matter of WP's famous institutional bias than a matter of any hitherto unexposed conspiracy where Monsanto and co. have spent years seeding WP with sleeper editors who have racked up thousands of non-GM, non-food, non-Monsanto edits only to spring into action to "censor" MAM this week (though, bizarrely, that is what has been suggested). WP is always going to be biased in favour of government scientific reports and against Facebook campaigns by activists because the latter isn't considered a reliable source. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, nor that it isn't important. But when your call-to-arms is on social media and those social media "sources" aren't considered reliable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, that's not a conspiracy. That's just a factor of WP not being a source of news, or original research and a hang-over from the fact that WP is, after all, an encyclopedia. So, by all means, keep up your good work and keep finding those reliable sources. But understand that articles like this (based on current events and social media campaigns, rather than years of research) are going to be nominated for deletion and that it probably shouldn't have been created when it was. Should it be deleted now? Probably not. But the "anti-GMO/anti-Monsanto" crowd could have done themselves a lot of favours by getting it right in the first place. Stalwart111 01:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, i didnt saw that. Keep anyway... --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implied apology accepted. I'm not withdrawing the nomination, but I am prepared to accept the evolving consensus to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are your reasons for supporting deletion of the current version, Robert? petrarchan47 t c 23:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the most recent version of the article, I think that Keep is warranted. Can an admin who is on this page do an early close? I don't want to withdraw the AfD, which would imply that it was a mistake, and it wasn't, but I am willing to have it closed early with consensus to keep because notability was established after the fact. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 30 May 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. If an appropriate redirect target is found feel free to create the redirect. J04n(talk page) 01:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redondo Sycamore, Los Angeles[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this "district" exists. It's not mentioned in a single reliable source that I can find. Even on a straight-up google web search the only thing that comes up aside from this Wikipedia article is a bunch of stuff about a general contractor in San Diego. If it doesn't exist as a place in the world, it's certainly not notable. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without commenting yet on whether the article should stay or not, I do find evidence that the neighborhood exists. The PICO Neighborhood Council (a city-sanctioned community advisory group) says it has a designated slot on its board for a Redondo Sycamore representative.[47] [48] There also appears to be a Redondo Sycamore Neighborhood Association, possibly under the PICO Neighborhood Council.[49] --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Lord, if they're letting neighborhood councils make up their own subneighborhoods we're all in for a heck of a ride! I would guess that the city doesn't make up the titles for the neighborhood councils, they let the neighborhood councils make up their own. Good find, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It exists, but it's not notable. No WP: Reliable sources attest to its notability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence that it is anything other than a gleam in the eye of the members of the Neighborhood Council. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the larger neighborhood it's a part of. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NorthBySouthBaranof and Merge whatever we can. While it's somewhat notable since by WP:NGEO it does officially exist and people live there, it hasn't received WP:SIGCOV. If it does in the future, un-redirected. Ansh666 08:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense do you mean that it "officially" exists?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it's recognized by a semi-official governmental body. "semi-officially exist" would have been better wording, in hindsight. Ansh666 17:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is redirected, it's unclear what the target should be. Mid-Wilshire? Central Los Angeles? The only verified information we have about this subject is that it is part of the P.I.C.O or PICO Neighborhood Council, but that council or neighborhood does not have an article, so it's unclear to me why one of its sub-neighborhoods should have an article. It's also unclear on what basis we could choose a redirect target, since we know nothing else about the neighborhood. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the sub-neighborhoods that have designated seats on the P.I.C.O. Neighborhood Council, there are four besides this one. South Carthay and Carthay Square are redirects to Carthay, Los Angeles. Of the other two, Wilshire Vista, Los Angeles was created last month and Wilshire Highlands, Los Angeles was created just a few days ago; they have no more content or sourcing that the subject under discussion, and IMO whatever is done with this article should also be done with them. The same user also recently created similar articles for Pico Park, Los Angeles and Wilshire Vista Heights, Los Angeles, which do not even have the virtue of having designated seats on the Neigborhood Council, so IMO are even less verifiable and less defensible than the others. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 27 May 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 towards the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptocurrency[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

WP:CFORK of Digital currency. These pages should be either deleted or merged with Digital currency and the full List of digital currencies. Beware of content removals in those respective pages. KyleLandas (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a content fork (earlier KyleLandas claimed it was a content fork), cryptocurrency doesn't treat the same subject as digital currency. A cryptocurrency is a special type of digital currency, as it has multiple defining features, which other digital currencies lack (for example, cryptocurrencies rely on cryptography/proof-of-work for currency distribution and production, and they are also decentralized and peer-to-peer). All cryptocurrencies are digital currencies, but not all digital currencies are cryptocurrencies, this is in a similar manner to the way that all digital currencies are alternative currencies, but not all alternative currencies are digital currencies (so there are articles for both of those topics too). I've created a separate list article, as there are a large number of (smaller) cryptocurrencies, and I didn't want to fill up the original article.

Besides, cryptocurrency should have a page as it clearly meets the notability guidelines given the number of reliable sources for it (I've added quite a few to the cryptocurrency page, but a quick google search reveals far more which could be added if necessary), this alone should be enough to keep a place for the article given the following guideline from the notability article: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below.

With regards to the so called content removals, I was simply moving the information on cryptocurrencies, to the article on cryptocurrencies. Claims of a content fork had been made, so I decided to remove the information about cryptocurrencies from the article on digital currencies, and leave it in the article about cryptocurrencies (I'd originally wanted to keep the important information on both pages, it was only after claims of content forks that I removed the information from one of the pages). Cliff12345 (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of cryptocurrencies, and merge cryptocurrencies. The list is full of stuff that is not notable, and smells really scammy and fraud-like (as is the list of digital currencies). Plus, it's duplicating info from list of digital currencies (which I would also suggest is not needed). I like the idea of a page on cryptocurrencies, but at the moment, I think that cryptocurrencies should redirect to digital currency#Cryptocurrency. I also think that there should be a nice big warning at the top of every related page about any and all of these systems maybe scams, or, in the case of the centralised currencies, maybe shutdown by the govt. without notice (see e-gold & Liberty Reserve).**** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be too bothered about removing the non-notable cryptocurrencies in the list of cryptocurrencies page (their lack of notability is why I didn't want them on the main page) and subsequently deleting the list page. The same goes for list of digital currencies, I'd only kept that huge list as someone else had added it, presumably because they thought it might be useful (so I figured someone else might find it useful too).

However, as I've said before, the cryptocurrency article has plenty of content, clearly meets the notability requirement (A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below.) and it is not a content fork, so it should stay. With regards to the worries that it was duplicating info from the other pages, I was going to remove that duplicate info from the digital currencies page, and put it in the cryptocurrencies page (though I don't really see the problem with two articles sharing a certain amount of info), but my edits were undone. As for the idea of having a warning, I share your worries, but Wikipedia doesn't give advice and isn't a guide, the criticism section is for listing what others have been worried by (here and here). Cliff12345 (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what a forky, spammy, crufty mess. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the cryptocurrency article, how is it forky and spammy? If your concern is that the digital currency page already has the content of the cryptocurrency page, that content is only there because someone copied and pasted it (this edit) from the cryptocurrency article after posting the AFD, I originally intended to simply have a link on the digital currency to the main content on the cryptocurrency page (because as I have explained earlier, there are a large number of sources for cryptocurrency, so it should be notable enough for an article). 86.178.30.79 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Note: I am Cliff12345[reply]

I've now edited the digital currency page so that the content for cryptocurrencies is only on the cryptocurrency page (link to the edit). 86.178.30.79 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very definition of forking and it changes nothing. In fact, it just makes information harder to find. There is nothing justifying seperation besides pure emotional preference. --KyleLandas (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained earlier, cryptocurrency is not a fork, it is a (notable) type of digital currency. I'll put it this way:

Wikipedia has an article on real numbers. A rational number is a type of real number, but rational numbers are notable, hence have their own article.
Wikipedia has an article on currency. The US dollar is a (type of) currency, but the US dollar is notable, hence has its own article.
Similarly, Wikipedia has an article on digital currency. A cryptocurrency is a type of digital currency, cryptocurrencies are notable, hence it should have its own article.

If your concern is that cryptocurrency shares some of the content and properties of digital currency, that's true, but the same could be said for the examples above. If your concern is that the cryptocurrency article could be put into the digital currency page, that's probably true, but Wikipedia doesn't delete articles just because they could be copied into a larger page (otherwise Wikipedia wouldn't have any articles of size less than 50000 bytes).

With regards to the concern it just makes information harder to find, surely having an article on cryptocurrency makes it easier to find. After all, if someone wants to find out about cryptocurrencies, there's a good chance they'll search for cryptocurrency, they may not want to have to look through some huge article about digital currencies. With regards to the concern There is nothing justifying seperation, the justification is that the topic is notable enough to warrant its own article, furthermore, having an article for cryptocurrencies will make it easier for a reader who is looking for information about cryptocurrencies, to find information about cryptocurrencies. 86.178.30.79 (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problems are obvious. The real issue is what to do with it. I suggest blowing it up starting over, but I welcome a radical fix immediately. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the problems are obvious - Are you talking about the cryptocurrency article (earlier I assumed you were), or the list of cryptocurrencies article? If it's the former, the problem isn't obvious to me (so please explain it). If it's the latter, I can see what you mean (I agree that the huge list seems a bit redundant. I left it there as I thought a few people might find it useful). Cliff12345 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with digital currency, as cryptocurrencies are a type of digital currency and the reader is not helped by breaking up the explanation into disparate short pages. Ross Fraser (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptocurrencies are a notable topic (as can be seen by a quick search), this alone should be enough to ensure it has its own article. The fact that cryptocurrencies are a type of digital currency seems irrelevant, digital currencies are a type of alternative currency, rational numbers are a type of real number, but Wikipedia has separate articles on all of these topics. I think a reader would be helped by breaking the explanation up into smaller pages, if someone wants to learn what a cryptocurrency is, or a learn a few basic facts about them, I think they'd want to read an article about cryptocurrencies, not have to plough through some article about a more general topic. Taking the example above, if I want to read about rational numbers, I'll go to the rational numbers page, not the real numbers page, I wouldn't want the rational numbers page to be merged in, as that would force me to go through a much bigger article to find the stuff I actually want. 86.178.30.79 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If cryptocurrency is a notable topic itself, there is no reason not to create a breakout article from the original digital currency; cryptocurrency is a kind of digital currency, but it is not a synonym of digital currency. Cryptocurrencies are distributed and anonymous, whereas digital currencies like Zen or Linden dollars are based on a central issuer. The article has reliable sources like Technology Review and Ars Technica and a quick Google News search reveals articles at CNET and the Washington Post. GScholar shows multiple peer-reviewed articles on cryptocurrency. Multiple independent reliable sources show that the topic is notable per WP:GNG. The article is new and short, but already has some good sources and shows no major problems. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets burn some books shall we? Cryptocurrency is real. Its not a "fork" put the pitchforks away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakware (talk • contribs) 08:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As noted above, distinction and notability seem demonstrated. The real problem seems to me to be that the digital currency article is a horrid mess too. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've hit on the nail on the head, digital currency page needs a revamp. -- Yablochko (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's pretty notable. It's been widely reported in the media, and is an accepted means of exchange in some narrow circles. "Blowing it up and starting over" is okay, but I don't think that warrants a merger with the digital currency article. While it is significantly different to digital currencies, except for the fact that all transactions occur over computer networks, that is besides the point I want to make. I think it falls into the wider category of "intangible currency", not inside the category of "digital currency". Additionally, there are many different cryptocurrencies, and there will be many more. So much so that a "cryptocurrency" section within another article will almost warrant an article in its own right. If this debate goes far enough, we'll have to be renaming "digital currency" to "intangible currency" so that "cryptocurrency" can fit inside it. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I can see, claims that the topic is a fork are incorrect (indeed, no justification for the claim was made). The distinction between digital currencies and cryptocurrencies is clear. It's also clear that the topic is notable given the large number of reliable, independent sources. I can't see any huge problem with the article that can't be fixed (and no justification for these claims has been made), so requests to blow it up seem unfounded and counterproductive. Cliff12345 (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has many sources, including Forbes and articles from major academic journals. There may be some quality issues, but I think it meets the standard for notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into digital currency. All the keep votes seem to be based on "it's notable and therefore it must have its own article". They have missed the important rider This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. This is a very clear case in which crypto and non-crypto digital currencies should be dealt with in the same article. They both need to address (or fail to address) the issues of forgery, duplication, divisibility, traceability, revokeability and so on. Duplicating these issues in two articles will lead to unending confusion. Comparing the different schemes has to be done in a single article. The fact that the articles do not yet cover these very important technical issues is no reason to make this split. This mess is all caused by using sources written by journalists who have no understanding of the technology. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent articulation. Just because the topic is notable in and of itself, doesn't mean it requires its own topic. The various digital currencies all share very important features, and face many of the same issues. The fact is, that at present, the cryptocurrencies are all based on Bitcoin (a point made in the article) and differ seemingly on minor technical (for usage purposes) differences. I'm unaware of any of the cryptocurrencies that implement an inflation based system (rather than the Bitcoin deflation system). So, until the cryptocurrencies actually differ from each other more (and not just on irrelevant technical details -- irrelevant in the same way that whether a physical coin is made from zinc or iron is irrelevant), I can't see the topic needing it's own article. (Besides, it makes it harder to make sure that people are pushing crap if the topic is spread over multiple articles.) **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my keep recommendation. While notability of a topic allows for breakout articles, distinction between cryptocurrency and digital currency is also important for such an endeavor. I pointed out some important differences between the two topics and and Yablochko did a better job of it below, backed up by the ECB, a reliable source. Your argument for a merge is based upon defining a currency by its functional requirements--but those functional requirements are broad enough to potentially merge many currency topics back together. Physical currencies also need to deal with forgery, duplication, divisibility, traceability, and revokeability; shall we merge in all physical currencies as well? I think not. In this case, organizing only by functional requirements is too broad a brush to paint the fundamental distinctions between these different types of currency. --Mark viking (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I re-read your keep vote and "it's notable and therefore it must have its own article" is a fair summary. Your claims about my merge vote are wandering strawmen. Dingo1729 (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.67.171 (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I think a lot of this debate hinges on the shortcomings of the digital currency page, which heavily duplicates cryptocurrency and seems to make an erroneous distinction with virtual money. We should defer to the ECB taxonomy (source), which uses the hybrid term "virtual currency", which covers closed systems (e.g. WoW gold), unidirectional flow systems (e.g. Facebook credits), and bidirectional flow systems (e.g. Linden dollars, Bitcoin). Cryptocurrencies are a subsection of bidirectional virtual currencies. Although they could be included within a virtual currency page, I think the topic is sufficiently distinct, complex, and nuanced to merit its own page. Also, the cryptocurrency page should acknowledge that many (most?) cryptocurrencies are scams. -- Yablochko (talk) 10:16, 4 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 (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R-commerce[edit]

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

Neologism. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 May 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.