< 30 May	1 June >

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Out Your Computer Day[edit]

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

Non-notable corporate 'holiday'. LukeSurl^{t c} 23:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems very small, no independent coverage and while a noble intent, does not meet WP:GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --BDD (talk) 23:25, 7 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. L Faraone 02:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shang Yunxiang[edit]

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

The article is copy/pasted form http://xingyimax.com/shang-yunxiang/ (a blog). The author says on the talk page that he has the copyright for the text uptained via a personal message on facebook. Besided that he didn't add the copyright message I don't know a Facebook message is enough to get the copyright for the text. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, this is Jonathan. I created this page. I'm currently in China and have no time or frequent access to Wifi, so please bear with me - might take up to 2 weeks to reply further... Neither do I have access to facebook so I cannot contact the author of the text. How do you wish to get the copyright proof from him? Should he personally contact someone or email someplace? Thanks for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.133.177.236 (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best way is to write an article in your own words and refer to the website - then no copyvio. Add in a few more references and away you go. I would generally support articles on historical people in the Chinese martial arts but understand the issue with cut and paste. If they are no longer living the bar with respect to references is lower than for those still living. An article does not have to have all information right away.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With this in mind I think it would'nt be fair to delete the article within the two weeks as the author is not available. I hope the article won't be deleted at all, but I think it needs to be adjusted a bit so it falls within the Wikipedia's guidelines.Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - my hope is that the original author understands the issue is a "conspiracy to improve Wikipedia".Peter Rehse (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to comment that, even ignoring the copyright issue, I don't see that someone's blog qualifies as a reliable source.Mdtemp (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Userfy This reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhao Fujiang--reliance on lineage, lack of reliable and independent sources, etc. If the articles aren't ready, then they shouldn't be put into main space, but kept in the author's sandbox. I have no objections to userfying this article so that it can be improved (actually, I'd prefer that to outright deletion). Right now it's not ready for prime time.Mdtemp (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant reliable coverage and fails notability standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan here. I'm still in China so I still haven't had time to deal with it more thoroughly. Still, I have added quite a few additional citations. Shang's name, birth and death years and his life-story are mentioned in several books written in the English language, by various authors. Would this be enough to satisfy the requirements of notability and 'significant coverage'? Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 12:34, 31 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) 23:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: I closed this discussion as delete but am now relisting it at the request of an editor to allow folks to assess the page after recent improvements. J04n(talk page) 00:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources showing lineage do nothing to make a case for notability. However, I think sources like [1] when combined with things like [2] and [3] are enough to avoid deletion. There is room for much improvement in this article. Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There's just enough coverage to show me this article can be improved and should be given that chance. Sources keep getting added and he appears to be a notable figure for certain styles. Jakejr (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It can be improved and the subject is notable; any copy vios must be removed, but even as a stub it can grow again. Deletion is a last resort and I don't think it is unsavagable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:12, 7 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. I'm willing to userfy it upon request. --BDD (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Chapman (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested with no reason given. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- He is on the playing staff of a League Two club. He is not stated to have played for the first team yet, but that is presumably only a matter of time. The article is probably premature, but will presumably be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It could always be userfied until such time as he plays, although there's so little in the article I'm not sure it's worth bothering. Oh, and there's no guarantee that it's only a matter of time until he plays. He'll be reserve goalie at best so unlikely to play, at least in the short term, unless Tommy Lee gets injured...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. If he is any good he will play for Chesterfield in a professional competition next season and the article can be recreated. Until that time comes he isn't notable. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userify or delete - Doesn't meet NFOOTBALL, seems a tad premature - though this article will likely be recreated with time and proper play; I'd like to see it userified if at all possible until such a time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - young footballer that might be notable in the future, but at this point he fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:58, 7 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. --BDD (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Towel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no establishment of notability. No mention of this subject in Cincinnati Bengals, therefore a redirect is unlikely to be necessary. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 22:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources provided, may be promotional in nature as it seems the item is something that is sold to fans.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a rally towel given out by the Bengals, and likely sold in shops as official merchandise. There is nothing particularly notable about his towel. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - If it really is important, make a tiny redirect as they are cheap, but I think deletion may be the only real option for a small promotional product like this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cindy(talk) 00:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 (2nd nomination) is likely to end in deletion. It has been pointed out by at least one editor that that is a tad one-sided; deleting the Israeli attacks while leaving the Palestinian ones. He's right: this article is largely a laundry list of non-notable events, and in reality is hardly different from the one that is about to be deleted; save for belligerent. Wikipedia is not a place for delineating every single rocket fired in a conflict; a better use of Wikipedia space on either side of the conflict would be to say "BLAH party fired BLAH rockets in the month/year of BLAH and no one was hurt". There is precious little coverage in the article from non-Israeli or non-Palestinian sources. Note that I have neither contributed to the content of this article, nor any other Israeli-Palestinian article. My only involvement is in the linked AfD; which I also voted delete in p b p 22:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well-referenced and is part of an important list covering Palestinian rocket attacks, like this one.--Sheilub (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well-sourced and does not use contentious labels like the lists of violations do. --1ST7 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, I'm unininvoled, too, and I don't see why there can't be encyclopedic coverage of this topic. The nom says that the article is a "tad one-sided; deleting the Israeli attacks while leaving the Palestinian ones." Then simply create an article about such attacks, or merge the two together. The nom says that this is a "list of non-notable events". Individual items on a list need not be independently notable. See WP:N. The nom says, "Wikipedia is not a place for delineating every single rocket fired in a conflict." If editors want more stricter inclusion criteria, this can be worked out on the talk page. The nom says that there is, "precious little coverage in the article from non-Israeli or non-Palestinian sources." I'm not sure if they mean the article suffers from a bias of Israeli and Palestinian sources, or they are trying to say that the rest of the world doesn't think that this important. Either way, that's not a valid reason to delete the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. That a dysfunctional tilt in wiki articles like this exists is the main problem. I see nothing wrong with such lists, save for the fact that (a) it is relatively easy to main-source attacks on Israel -they get intense coverage abroad, but quite difficult to find RS for attacks where Palestinians or their infrastructure are casualties (WP:systemic bias). We are deleting en masse the Palestinian articles, but none of the Israeli articles will lose out in the Adf process. (b) the Israel/victim pages show the vice of using 'Palestinians' instead of 'Palestinian militant'. (Imagine the obverse, if one wrote 'Israelis' bombed a Palestinian refugee camp' etc. It's the IDF that does that, a group or institution. That usage is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, involving ethnic stereotyping and collective blame. (This article also adds shameful colour by mentioning Shavuot festivities being disturbed by 'Palestinians' etc). The answer is to have articles representing the comparable lists for both sides 'Israeli/Palestinian attacks' per year, astringently neutral. Otherwise articles on this from neither side should be permitted, since they are being abused by image-manipulation, and this one looks like anything you can get out of an Israeli government website.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that, technically, these impressive lists are vitiated by a category error. The Israeli/Palestinian assaults concern, overwhelmingly, incidents of military conflict between an army and small groups of clandestine militants, and systematically exclude most of the evidence of unilateral (often mysterious or unprovoked) material assaults by Israeli military forces on individual Palestinian families and residences in the territories under occupation, which, normally, have taken place several times a week over the last decades. Take this episode, one of the rare ones reported in mainstream papers, recounted with bewildered and harrowing detail in yesterday's Haaretz. Incidents like these are in one POV (Palestinians) military assaults on civilians, yet they do not figure. They're negligable small fry.Nishidani (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the planned NPOV compliant article(s) that won't suffer from sampling bias (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Lists_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks.2FLists_of_Israeli_attacks_on_Palestinians). If that means keeping for now, fine, but it is just a matter of time before the content from these articles is moved into neutral articles and these rocket attack articles are deleted. The only practical benefit of these articles is that they attract dishonest people who use sockpuppetry, which helps to identify the people who unethically break the rules, exploit a charity and damage the reputation of Israel supporters and Israel. I assume those people will still have an uncontrollable compulsion to edit the replacement neutral articles so it will still be possible to see their footprints. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources covering each instance. It is quite encyclopedic to list information that has a significant effect on things. Dream Focus 10:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge although each event can be cited to a reliable source, WP:NOTNEWS comes to mind. It's unfortunate that these rocket attacks have almost become routine, but it appears to be the case. The content can be merged in a summarized form of prose in a related article like Palestinian rocket attacks on_Israel#2013, or elsewhere, but is there really a need to document each and every attack in a list? If so, then since we can verify each servicemember and contractor killed during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, we should have those lists as well; yet, I remember that those were deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such lists (like the one I created: List of drone strikes in Pakistan) clearly help research efforts (if they are accurate and well-documented). Jason from nyc (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RightCowLeftCoast, subject to re-creation or userfication if the article issues really can be fixed. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus and Jason from NYC. Notable subject, with reliable sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A simple list without a POV or indepth detail seems reasonable. The year is not even half over, so for current and historical use, it seems worth keeping for reasons listed above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an article that simply lists each event of a given type. It is an invaluable resource for the subject to have all this information in one place.User:Guest 12:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.140.3.35 (talk) [reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Unfortunately, rocket attacks against Israel are a routine occurrence, and documenting every one of them is beyond the scope of a general encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 23:34, 7 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 02:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Post Card[edit]

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

The article is on a Bengali little magazine, I have searched in Google (English and Bengali) but can not find many sources writing about this journal. According to the article the journal started publishing in 2012. Since this is not that old, I hoped to see more reliable sources. They have added a wordpress blog as official site. The others sources ^[1], ^[2], ^[3] are not relevant to this magazine. In short, I am unsure if it is a notable magazine! Leela Bratee (contact) 02:44, 01 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 31. Snotbot t • c » 21:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the nominator Leelabratee removed the AFD header off the article, so perhaps they are not intending to nominate this for deletion. I thought this was worth keeping due to its claim of bing the largest quarterly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of being the largest is sourced only to the publication's own entry in a business directly, which uses the same text as this article, indicating an element of WP:COPYVIO (though not covering the chunk of Marxism-for-beginners text further down the article) and certainly not independently verified evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening here?: They have copied and pasted my deletion rationale from here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shonkhobash --Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 14:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess possibly a nominator not familiar with procedure? It wasn't a wholesale copy, as the rationale here has content specific to this article. But the relist and list-inclusions were copied and are misleading: I have deleted them above, making it clear that this is a new listing not a relist. AllyD (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here they changed my rationale and updated Facebook like number! He has copied my and another user's user-pages too. In case you are an admin and think that copyvio and impersonation/incorrect information are not very serious and can be excused for this time, you can revert their recent edits and close the MFD (see his user page). I'll offer him some help. --Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 16:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Directories aren't reliable sources, as they're essentially user submitted. The remaining sources aren't even about the subject. I'm calling this one a WP:HOAX: the "largest circulating Bangla quarterly magazine" is hosted at Blogspot and their official contact is a Gmail address? Highly unlikely. Woodroar (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable 3rd party source found to support any claim to notability, though I am unable to check for Bengali-language sources. Fails general notability guidelines (though I am happy to revise that view if anyone locates reliable sources, whether in Bengali or any other language). AllyD (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I am not sure about it being a hoax, it definitely doesn't back up its claims and there is enough concern that this doesn't meet GNG. I couldn't find any reliable sources, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm also concerned about the blogspot and gmail address contacts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep. There seems to be enough coverage to show that this passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boobquake[edit]

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

This was nominated by Oxr033 (talk), who posted this rationale on the discussion page instead of the AFD page --Brian the Editor (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC) "I have nominated this article for deletion because I think it has extremely little worth. All the sources are either from feminist blog-type sites, or are in the 'and finally ...' section of one or two respectable news publications. The topic is very frivolous and not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, as many have already stated in this talk page. Oxr033 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

Keep. Before I start to explain why the page should not be deleted, please let me establish my credibility, such as it is, by pointing out that I was the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer McCreight. (That page is now a redirect to the page under discussion here. And there actually was a consensus in that discussion that this page, about the event, clearly deals with a subject that satisfies our notability criteria.) So I'm not merely making an "I like it" argument for keeping. No, the page should be kept for the simple reason that it clearly passes WP:GNG. Unfortunately, a lot of the nomination rationale is a textbook example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Although some of the sourcing is based on blogs as the nominator claims, let's look at other sourcing on the page. The New York Times covered the events that triggered the protest. The protest itself became the central topic (not "and finally") of articles in the Toronto Star, Daily Mail, Paris Herald, Washington Examiner, The Independent, and Vanity Fair. No matter how you parse it, the page satisfies WP:GNG (and there's no problem with WP:NOT). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict) passes WP:GNG & WP:EVENTS, IMO I see no reason for this to be nominated/deleted -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The event received a lot of news coverage, passing WP:GNG. Also, how is a social event with 200,000 participants "frivolous"? The references should indeed be looked over, a few sections are overweighted, there's not enough variety in the list of responses, etc. However, all of these things can be corrected. Marechal Ney (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet the general notability guideline. I can't see anything that would warrant deletion at this point. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 22:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems that the coverage was in depth. Also it passes WP:DIVERSE.Farhikht (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A bit silly but now that Iran's changed it's whole policy... ha ha ... but seriously, more than enough refs on notability for us inclusionists. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 11:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mainly per Trypotfish: "because I think it has extremely little worth" is not a reason to delete. Also clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTE. That doesn't mean the article is pefect (by any strecthc of the imagination) - it needs some work as Marechal Ney has suggested--Cailil ^talk 15:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage and 200,000 people participated in it. Dream Focus 15:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widespread coverage as demonstrated by the the article's sources makes this pass WP:EVENT. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major event, feminist backing or otherwise, the size of the event shows notability and coverage in RSes allows for a full and detailed article without original research. A definite keep. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:32, 7 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 20:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gonnabees[edit]

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

Prod-deleted, then restored via WP:REFUND. Restoration reason was "had a major hit in New York City. Album available on Amazon and iTunes". Simply having an album available for sale is not a criterion of WP:NMUSIC, nor is having a #1 single on an unverifiable regional chart. I was completely unable to find anything on this band that wasn't a lyric site. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to be advertising as under WP:NOTADVERTISING. Citrusbowler (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If "they have been rejected and banned from everywhere except New York", it's the quietest banning in the history of the world - not even a sniff of media attention that I can find. All they're gonnabe is gone. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most I could find were pictures of them backing up William Hung at the 2004 Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards. Suffice it to say, the group appears to fall well short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gong show 21:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that this band meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 07:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No RSes I could find, I checked Highbeam as well, doesn't seem to meet band notability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 22:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glasses Direct[edit]

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

Seems a Soap for glasses direct - content is completely written in advertisement style. Amit (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears notable. It appears it can be salvaged. Citrusbowler (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~~Weak delete~~ - do you mean the subject appears to be notable? If so, I have to disagree. There are a few news articles about the company's fights with other companies, but the rest seems to be sourced from the company's website and at least one blog that doesn't even mention the subject. Having done a search of my own, I couldn't find much by way of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The sources attached to the article were horrible and some links weren't even the articles they claimed to be. I've removed a couple of deadlinks and a few that went nowhere or to articles that had nothing to do with the subject. I'd like to think they were mistakes rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, but they are not worth keeping there either way. Without more in depth coverage, I can't see how the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. More than willing to be convinced, so please post anything you can find. Stalwart111 02:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And ChrisGualtieri has now done exactly that, sufficiently enough to demonstrate there are sources out there that could be used to replace the inadequate ones currently used in the article. Many of them still seem to be about the entrepreneur that owns the company, rather than the company itself, but in amongst that there is enough to convince me. Just. Have changed my note. Stalwart111 05:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because I doubt it is a notable company. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If WP:BEFORE had been checked the news section on Google turns up 5 years worth of RSes, including interviews. From the Independent.[4] to Skynews [5] and even coverage of its award as a startup.[6] It meets GNG because of these sources. While they may not be cited right now, they can easily be included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:54, 7 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. L Faraone 02:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Whittaker[edit]

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

Only one source for this article about an obscure professor. Everything that is on the page is from her faculty website and thus it is completely duplicative Glo145 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ACADEMIC: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Her work has been cited in a slew of scholarly books, e.g., [7], [8], [9], [10]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People may find clicking on the "Scholar" link above helpful as it lists the number of other entries citing hers. The first, "The origins of modern Russian education: an intellectual biography of Count Sergei Uvarov, 1786-1855", shows 50 citing articles, for instance. [11] 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - It is clearly stated in the policy on WP:ACADEMIC that “if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.” Many people interpret this incorrectly to mean that as long as they satisfy WP:ACADEMIC that they do not need to satisfy WP:GNG. General notability guidelines are not “subject specific” guidelines, they are general guidelines. As such, it is my opinion that this article must still meet WP:GNG in order for inclusion. With that being said, she is cited in many publications and has contributed to some as well. She would qualify under WP:ACADEMIC, but there are no WP:RS that would qualify her under general notability guidelines, which is the 1st step to inclusion in my opinion. As such, the article should be deleted or placed in a userspace until such time as she is identified by WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Also, “Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1 [of WP Academic].” That kind of contradicts the academic guidelines, but still shows that the intent is not to allow articles to circumvent the WP:GNG and qualify for inclusion simply for being cited in other publications or having authored many texts.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACADEMIC also states: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." It does not say "notable for purposes of this guideline, but also must meet general notability criteria." 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24.151...'s interpretation of WP:PROF is the one generally accepted here, the idea being that academics generally cite works rather than write about people and show notability that way. However if FoolMeOnce2Times is arguing that she does not have enough academic notability for her work to qualify, then that's an acceptable position. ~~I am remaining Neutral for now.~~ Had a chance to look at the arguments more (2 June) and esp. the influence of her HUP book is sufficient to me to indicate a pass of WP:PROF#C1; Keep -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MSC is basically right in that the general consensus has been that individuals who pass WP:ACADEMIC are considered notable (regardless of WP:GNG) in the same way that a sportsperson is considered notable if he or she passes WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOLYMPICS, even without significant coverage elsewhere. This allows coverage of perhaps slightly obscure Javelin gold medallists or professional footballers who play in teams with many famous players and so are not regularly written about. We have those guidelines as an acknowledgement that some people may have made a profound contribution to their field, and so should be covered here, without being covered in the Daily Mail or Chicago Tribune. The passage quoted by FoolMeOnce2Times - "if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." - does not have anything to do with WP:GNG, in my view. It's about other subject specific guidelines like WP:AUTHOR, meaning a professor can be notable for being a professor, without having to separately meet the criteria at WP:AUTHOR for the books he or she has written. In this case, there seems to be agreement that the subject passes WP:ACADEMIC and a quick GoogleBooks search would suggest she and her work have been quoted and cited regularly enough to potentially pass WP:GNG anyway. That's enough for me. Stalwart111 03:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Academic impact is trivial, with no work standing out. Prospects for greater citation impact are dim based on publication rate. No awards or leadership positions worthy of other WP:ACADEMIC criteria. Fails WP:ACADEMIC as well as general criteria in my reading.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a target number of citations required in mind? In a relatively small field like pre-20th Century Russian history, 50 Google Scholar citations for her academic biography of Sergei Uvarov strikes me as fairly significant. Compare with the 37 citations for a major work by Chester Dunning, another scholar in the field: [12]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 4 full books , one of them by Harvard UP is enough for significance as an academic (the Harvard one is in 339 libraries) . Expanding Stalwart's example, our standard for comparison is not for obscure javelin gold medalists, but with anyone who ever actually competed in the Olympics, in javelin or any other sport. In response to Truth or consequences, being co-editor of a book published by HUP is somethingI would consider as work standing out to a very significant degree, Books in the historical sciences get cited for decades, so there are almost certain to be further citations. The book on Count Sergei Uvarov,is in 480 libraries. For a book on an early 19th century Russian Minister of Education to be that widely noticed is notability--where I saw the title, I expected about 100--and it was actually also translated into Russian as Graf Sergej Semenovič Uvarov i ego vremja 15 years after the original publication. Anyway, regardless of WP:PROF, she meets WP:AUTHOR: Her 2003 book on Russian Monarchy was reviewed in Slavic and East European journal. 48, no. 3, (2004): 525; Russian Review, v63 n4 (Oct., 2004): 698-699American historical review. 109, no. 4, (2004): 1339; Canadian-American Slavic studies. 39, no. 2, (2005): 285; Slavic review, 63, no. 2, (2004): 402; and Groniek. no. 165, (2004): 628. The Harvard book was reviewed in Solanus- 18, (2004): 122-12; Slavic and east european journal, 51, no. 4, (2007): 827-828; European History Quarterly, 35, no. 4, (2005): 614, and Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, v52 n4 (2004): 617. The book on Uvarov by American Historical Review, v90 n5 (Dec., 1985): 1240; Canadian Slavonic Papers v28 n2 (June 1986): 207; Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, v38 n2 (1990): 306; Slavic Review, v45 n2 (Summer, 1986): 324 ; Russian Review, v45 n1 (Jan., 1986): 75 and History of Education Quarterly, v27 n1 (Spring, 1987): 105 (this last one a 5p. review, unusual for an academic journal) These are just the reviews I saw in WorldCat, there are further indexes to search. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DGG infuses an artificial and hardly relevant criterion here. A book getting into a library is hardly a sign of notability of the author or work. Many libraries have package deals or perfunctorily buy titles from certain presses. Many books sit on shelves unread and then get struck from library rolls without impact. This is comparatively likely to happen with major press books (such as HUP) that get bought automatically. As we speak I am reading a HUP book from 1989, which I bought used recently. It was officially withdrawn from an R1 research university's library. There, it was borrowed three times in 24 years: the proverbial tree that falls in the forest. As for reviews, and especially length of reviews, these are hardly relevant either. Again, some collections and topics are reviewed as a matter of course. History journals are notorious for reviewing anything regardless of quality and impact. A long review often simply means that the author of the review did not know what to say and just summarized the work at length. As far as WP:PROF we should see evidence of actual impact, and that is citations and presence in the academic dialog, since the career does not satisfy other criteria. Cynthia Whittaker fails on that critical count, and no, time will not magically heal this.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came back here to say I've added the reviews to the article, and her other journal articles. As usual, articles here on faculty when they are first submitted are not as detailed as they ought to be)

But, to reply, though I hardly think it's needed for anyone who accepts our basic standards of NAUTHOR and PROF: a book getting into a library is not a sign of notability ; books getting into hundreds of them are. Libraries buy books on the basis of expect use, and reviews, and, for most libraries, faculty recommendations. Libraries do have standing approval plans for books from publishers and topics where they expect almost all of them to be asked for. As for substantial reviews showing notability of books, that's the relevant application of the basic GNG criterion, and is restated in NBOOK. People who write several notable books are notable. Truth, I think you are objecting to the basic idea that academics can be notable because of their academic work, and writers because of their writings. I've said as much here as should convince anyone who accepts that, DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truth, I think you are objecting to the fact that there should be standards of actual quality for academics and their work, even though citations are the accepted basis in the profession and this subject fails on that basis. I have said as much as should convince anyone who cares to separate notable from non-notable academics.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found similar results as David w.r.t. book holdings, which are appropriate bibliometrics for her area: "Origins of modern Russian education" 536, "Russia engages the world" 372, etc. We have historically taken such numbers as indication of notability in the humanities. Agricola44 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per DGG's arguments. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Hate to pile on, but per DGG. I believe it'd pass GNG, technicalities aside, GNG is a proper default to test against. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:53, 7 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 Ti Ora Tha Vgoume?. (non-admin closure) czar · · 22:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Den Thelo Allon Iroa[edit]

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

Article is about music recording that lacks notability, a non-single. It does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. If anything, it should be merged into the album's article Ti Ora Tha Vgoume?. Greekboy (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Grk1011 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I see no reason why it requires its own article when the entire album is no better. Merge to Ti Ora Tha Vgoume? is the best option. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:00, 7 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 Ti Ora Tha Vgoume?. (non-admin closure) czar · · 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ti Ora Tha Vgoume[edit]

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

Article is about music recording that lacks notability, a non-single. It does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. If anything, it should be merged into the album's article Ti Ora Tha Vgoume?. Greekboy (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Grk1011 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Again as I mirrored at the previous song, merge to the album, Ti Ora Tha Vgoume?. Does not warrant standalone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:01, 7 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. Courcelles 05:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subversive Records[edit]

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

Clearly a record label as they are listed on some records, but that is the only mention I can find. Being listed as the record label to an album without any independent coverage or significant coverage does not qualify for an article based on WP:GNG. If someone can find WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources which would show notability, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 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) 18:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find anything that we would consider significant coverage in a reliable source, let alone the multiple anythings required by WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 03:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find anything myself. A previous company seems to have existed in the 1980's at seen at this Google Link.[13] So that other company aside, not even a trivial mention showed up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 22:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korea ginseng corporation[edit]

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

Only a single reference and notability appears to rest on the fact that Harrods stocks its products. Reads like an advertisment. No evidence of independent notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of notability is clearly stated in the opening paragraph of the article, and has no connection with Harrods. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major supplier of ginseng and covered in reliable sources. I suspect there is a lot of sources in Korean, but I stuck to English and found articles in the Korean Times, Joongang Daily, and Chosun Ilbo. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suffers from 'business article' faults, but is a notable company which meets GNG, Korean sources are assumed to exist and Whpq has pointed out some possible additions. The articles faults can be fixed, but its best to keep it under the circumstances. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:24, 7 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 20:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Assassin[edit]

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

Unfortunately, this band falls short of WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The only coverage is the usual AllMusic and other listing websites like Amazon.com. Nothing that would be considered significant coverage in reliable sources and as such should does not meet notability guidelines. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The top G-hits are riddled with Myspace pages, blogs, self-inclusion sites and the like. Conspicuously absent are references from reliable sources. Ravenswing 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources either - fails WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 07:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Avoiding General Books publication of this article, I could find only small sources for this. Highbeam provided one, probably the best you can easily find, but it doesn't pass NBAND or GNG. "Scott McLennan. "Hair we go again ; The Narcissus Heavy Metal Wednesday Reunion revisits Kenmore's hump- day heyday." The Boston Globe (Boston, MA). The New York Times Company. 2012. Retrieved June 06, 2013 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-31522067.html" It provides a minor mention, but no detailed coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 7 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 02:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isis Love[edit]

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

The article offers no assertion of notability, the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO (even in its old version) and any other suitable SNG, even stretching them. Deprodded with the rationale that "subject has made contributions to the watersports genre of pornography, among other genres": possible, but this claim should be supported by reliable sources. Cavarrone 17:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom is correct. Fails GNG with only passing mentions in semi-reliable sources like XBiz. Fails PORNBIO with just a single scene-related award nomination. Any unique contributions to porn per PORNBIO criterion #2 need to be acknowledged by reliable sources. I don't see any. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Gene93k. Unsourced "unique contribution" claims carry no weight, and their abuse of late makes me wonder if that language should be removed from PORNBIO, since the necessary sourcing is likely to satisfy the GNG as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different issues. All criteria of PORNBIO and of any other SNG need to be sourced, period, it's a question of verifiability, not of general notability. A person could be referred by an encyclopedia or by some scholars as the historic initiator of a pornographic genre despite not clearly meeting GNG criteria. Cavarrone 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the above are correct. Statements of 'unique contributions' are not self-authoritating; without the proper sources, this page is no better than speculation or fanon. Besides, subject matter is unsuitable for a civilised portal of learning and education such as this. CavalierOne 08:47, 01 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.209.174 (talk) [reply]
Keep - FYI, I've again updated the article in question a bit. Ms. Love has, IMHO, "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre", specifically the watersports genre - which is a niche market (and not my personal cup of tea) for sure, in her directorial work for Kink.com, which seems to generate more web-based content than feature-length adult films. As for "has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", it's difficult to tell at this point what the ultimate impact the documentary film (Public Sex, Private Lives) that Ms. Love is featured in will have, since that film appears to have just been released within the last month or so. If the article in question here was created later rather than now, it might be easier to judge the impact of this recent documentary, but here we unfortunately are in any event. As for any unsubstantiated "abuse" claims and/or curiosity in whether "that language should be removed from PORNBIO", well...I'd expect that kind of thinking from a well-known deletionist that's unfortunately chosen to focus most (if not all) of their efforts on the Pornography Project in what appears up to this point to be a big case of I don't like it. Guy1890 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Fails WP:GNG & WP:PORNBIO, (Doesn't she look pretty!) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under PORNBIO and GNG as noted above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow close. The arguments here are overwhelmingly for its deletion, closing a little early. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIVAHARI THEOREM ON ODD AND EVEN NUMBERS[edit]

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

Regretfully, it appears that this good faith effort fails our notability guidelines per WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously not an encyclopedia article. --99of9 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this is a good faith effort. The results looks like original research, which is disallowed per WP:NOR. I was unable to find the "SIVAHARI THEOREM" in any independent reliable sources, so the topic also seems to fall below general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. A non-notable topic and likely original research suggests deletion of this article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is just simple algebra. (X+1)^2=(X^2)+(2X+1)= (the square before)+plus an odd number two greater the last one used for the last sqaure. With e.g. section 1.4 he has just proven that n^4=(n^3)*n. Good luck to the author, but this is the sort of stuff I did at school.Martin451 (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author does not understand (1) That original research is not allowed here, and (2) That a Wikipedia article does not belong to its initial author. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely OR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The result, although true, is a trivial mathematical observation. As Martin notes, it follows rather immediately from the fact that ${\displaystyle n^{k}=n\cdot n^{k-1))$ . In fact, this simple identity is actually a stronger statement than the one contained in the supposed "theorem" that is the subject of the article. Claiming a weaker result than a fact that is well-known to most school children as a "theorem" is clear WP:OR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC) And a very trivial mathematical observation that might be.[reply]
Delete - interesting, but not encyclopedic. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - thoroughly explained by Sławomir Biały and Mark viking. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:05, 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 deleted per CSD#G7. Author blanked the page shortly before the AfD was posted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kacey Khaliel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

seems promotional, Google brings up nothing (despite the refs added), Fails WP:music & WP:GNG –
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:45, 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 speedy close; nomination is actually for Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and therefore opened in the wrong forum. I also don't see that XFD is the proper way to go about changing Wikipedia policy, and in looking at the nominator's contribution history I see no indication of any recent attempt to improve, discuss, or otherwise change the policy in question. I will therefore not nominate this page at MfD myself on procedural grounds as I ordinarily would, but will not object to Borock (talk · contribs) doing so. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary[edit]

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

I have been watching this for a long time. The majority of WP editors, and good editors too, do not have a mental grasp on this policy. Whenever it is cited, especially in AfD debates, 80% to 90% of the editors who weigh in have no understanding of the concept. (I am assuming good faith that they are not willfully ignoring it.) A policy that is not understood by the people it is supposed to guide is useless. It's time for this one to go. Borock (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is no article called Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you are trying to nominate the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary for deletion, that is a project page and must be listed at Miscellany for deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I checked that out. I'm afraid that I'm Beating a dead horse. But in this case it made me feel better. :-). Go ahead and undo it. Borock (talk) 16:24, 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Shea[edit]

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

Believes she fails WP:NTRACK Gbawden (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject meets #7 of WP:NTRACK, please see this source:
Shea set the national high school girls mile record in 1977 with a 4:43.1 when she was a senior at Cardinal Gibbons High.
Furthermore, the subject made a historic first being the first woman to win the ACC Athlete of the Year award, and thus can be said to pass WP:ANYBIO, the subject was also given in-depth coverage from her Alma Mater. That being said the subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources including the New York Times, and added up it can be argued that those multiple mentions would be considered significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:21, 27 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, czar · · 15:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSeems to have passed notability SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article may be lacking, but subject is notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject definitely notable, confirmed by sources located by RightCowLeftCoast. Finnegas (talk) 13:50, 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. (non-admin closure) Cindy(talk) 00:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irson Kudikova[edit]

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

I do not see any notability. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG, and also does not seem to be specifically notabe as an actor or as a musician. Ymblanter (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:MUSICBIO.–Kiwipat (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Kiwipat you are the creator of the article and you are claiming "Delete clearly fails WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:MUSICBIO". Sounds bizarre! If you know it eaelier why did you created it? Solomon7968 (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:39, 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, czar · · 15:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable in Russia as many singers in America are notable in America http://www.hello.ru/articles/kudikova2.html we count Russian Hello just as English Hello magazine. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interwiki seems to host more to follow, but the youtube video section is unfortunately what "references" we got on the Enwiki. It needs a major overhaul, but the subject is notable in Russia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Russian speaker, and I do not see anything reasonable in the Russian article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It needs to be referenced better but meets GNG. 86.153.72.187 (talk) 08:29, 9 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 20:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Hwang[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. There's enough to pass A7, and I've just removed the BLP PROD as it is sourced now, but one is her blog, and the other merely lists her name. Can't find anything more really. Ged UK 12:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:12, 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, czar · · 15:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No WP:RS to judge whether person meets WP:GNG. I also couldn't find anything. Crtew (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-WP:PRIMARYSOURCES; even its "external link" is not a page about her but a news article that she wrote about Jarome Iginla, meaning that it demonstrates her existence but fails to provide verification for any of the article's content. For the record, her work has been almost entirely as a news producer rather than as an on-air journalist — which doesn't automatically make her less notable in and of itself, but it does mean that she's not a public figure or a potential subject of media coverage in WP:RS in quite the same way as an on-air journalist would be. Also there's a possibility of WP:COI issues here, as the article's creator has the username User:Cdnjournfdn (i.e. Canadian Journalism Foundation). Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow the conflict of interest argument here, given that she's not mentioned on the Canadian Journalism Project as being associated with it. Can you be more specific as to the possible COI? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was a possibility, not that it was definite. But at any rate, I sincerely doubt that they have the time or the inclination to go around writing articles about Canadian journalists out of pure unaffiliated altruism — especially since (a) this article was that username's only contribution to Wikipedia to date, and (b) it relied on inside information (i.e. personal knowledge) that didn't have any reliable sourcing to back it up. It may or may not have been COI in the sense of her being directly involved in the organization (although not being on the board doesn't prove that she isn't a member), but I have to presume that the contributor does know her personally in some capacity. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources to be found; cannot even back the "award" claim so there is little that we can do to verify this BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Galgameth[edit]

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

Part of a walled garden built by a mostly WP:SPA around Ojai Studio Artists. Promotional piece lacking notability. Lacks coverage In independent reliable sources. Lacks any reviews. Sourced only by imdb and a shop. I found anothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another look says the garden is centred on Devin Neil Oatway and not Ojai Studio Artists. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does anyone know if the remake thing is real and not just someone saying that they're similar? If it can be verified that it's a remake of Pulgasari, then this could be included in the article as a one sentence mention and this redirected there. So far I'm seeing some mention, such as a trivial mention in a Billboard article and a brief review, but nothing major. There might be a review in this Orlando Sentinel article, but I'd like to know for certain before saying it absolutely does. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pulgasari#Legacy. I found some mention of the film in passing and managed to find mention of it having been a re-make of the North Korean movie, but everything I've found for this has been a brief and trivial mention at best. I'll note for any searchers that the film was at one point referred to simply as "Galgamesh" and you'll find more sources under just that. Other than a few reviews in typical film review books (all of which are about a paragraph long), most of this just references to the fact that it exists and was a remake of a Shin movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:46, 8 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, Dea db eef 06:53, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "walled garden" worry aside, this thing had multiple international releases under different searchable names, including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The may be enough in other-than-English sources to merit a keep. Time for further digging. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Relisting in light of wikt:eleventh-hour new sources

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The worry of a "walled garden" aside, this film film had multiple international releases under different searchable names. Yes... this article on a minor children's film has been overlooked for some time, and while not intended to "force" cleanup this AFD has brought attention to an improvable topic. Article is now undergoing expansion and improvement.[14] We rarely delete articles if it is shown that they can be improved over time and through regular editing. Yes... there's much more to do. But rather than deletion of weak articles, it is through our improving them per use of available news and book sources that we improve this encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been improved and references have been added (thanks to MichaelQSchmidt). jonkerz ♠talk 13:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly enough coverage to warrant an article of its own. --Soman (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep per Schmidt. Once again he proves that he's our miracle worker when it comes to sourcing film articles! :) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. See also WP:ODD; crappy films often make great articles. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 21:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WireframeSketcher[edit]

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

Well... spam. I mean, look at the sources: the company's own website, a press release, something vaguely commercial, an online review, a blog post, a press release and more of the same.

The only vaguely relevant claim to notability is the two awards, except the only sources given are the site of the award-giver. Zero evidence is presented that these awards might have significance outside the entity giving the award and the one receiving it.

Oh, and the article creator is one Peter.severin, which just happens to be the name of the WireframeSketcher's developer, and who just happens to have made three edits to Wikipedia: this article, this and this. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This software has been around for a couple of years but it doesn't seem as though it has really caught on; in addition, the software didn't actually win the awards listed in the article (follow the link to find out). Also, per nom, it doesn't help that the article was created by the software creator. But speaking of that, nom, it would have been best had you notified Mr. Severin about this AfD (don't worry; I'll do it). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Generally agree with everything Gene93k says, but it does appear that NOTE can be met in this and this. Neither is the NYT, but I'm always inclined to err on the side of keep in these cases. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I said all that; Gene93k then added the debate to other discussions. ;) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about "betanews" - for starters, we need to determine whether that's a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. I do know raymondcamden.com can't be used to attest anything - that site is some guy's blog, and per WP:BLOGS, some guy's blog is never a reliable source. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I work at the Eclipse Foundation and organize the Eclipse Community Awards. I have updated the article to point to the a press article about the award winners and a direct link to our announcement. We get approximately 50 nominations for the Developer Tool award that was won by Wireframe Sketcher so it faced stiff competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanSkerrett (talk • contribs) 07:44, 23 May 2013‎
Weak keep: The article is weak, yet since it's not one of those ridiculous spam claiming that this tool is the best tool ever, I tend to be in favor of keeping it. It would need to be improved to be useful as it's a bit short right now. By looking online for information on Wireframe Sketcher, we can find articles about it so it's not some completely unknown tool. It also seems to be compared quite often to other tools like Balsamiq. Its wikipedia article is not particulary content-heavy either. I think it would be better if both articles had more content. Dyhorus (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I'm missing something, this says nothing about WireframeSketcher, while this is a blog post, and thus not relevant for our purposes, per WP:BLOGS. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 20 Excellent Wireframing Tools for Mobile article on Mashable that you point out is a slideshow and it dedicates slide 11 to WireframeSketcher. Peter Severin (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contributing toward notability for this topic are

I consider all of these reliable media and in particular there are many Eclipse plugins out there, so the Eclipse community awards are competitive. In addition there are the two more sources that Maury mentioned above; betanews could be reliable, but I cannot tell at this point. I think that for the purposes of notability, the two online reviews count as independent, in-depth treatments from reliable sources. While not in depth, the awards also contribute toward notability. Thus the topic seems to pass general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. The article could use improvement and the nom is right to bring up potential COI issues, but the article has no major problems with spam that I can see. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- As I've mentioned before, the problem with the "Eclipse Community Awards" is that there's very little mention of them outside the website of the award-giver, meaning we can't really gauge their importance. They sound impressive, but what independent sources confirm their relevance to the field? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet GNG. So I'll err on the side of caution and raise my vote for keep; it needs to add more independent sources as pointed out here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based upon Mark Viking's findings and a bit of clean up done to the article. Surmountable over Delreasons on this one. Mkdw ^talk 20:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time. I do find the last set of "keep" arguments to be strongest, so I would expect attempted near-future AFDs would likely continue in that vein (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Officeyes.com[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 May 16 Courcelles 06:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 06:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 06:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 06:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article text describes what this firm does, the references establish its existence and give an idea of its ambitions to be India's equivalent of Staples. Perhaps these can be regarded as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH, but they seem to me to be more of the typical publicity associated with a start-up. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The Financial Times interview is a solid source. The passing reference in the other FT article has some value. The Entrepreneur Magazine coverage looks fine, but I'm really unable to tell if this is a reasonable RS or not. Same with Yourstory. I'm leaning toward yes on Entrepreneur Magazine and no on YS as reliable sources. YS looks likely to be a "pay for story" mill, at least in part. So topic seems to meet WP:N, if just barely. Hobit (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Entrepreneur Magazine article, this is the Indian edition of US business magazine Entrepreneur (magazine) with approx 600k monthly circulation Coopeteer (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]

You are meaning the Economic Times rather than the Financial Times I think? I agree that is the strongest of the bunch. Yourstory cannot be a WP:RS - their front page says "YourStory Pages is a user-editable database of all things related to the Indian startup ecosystem. As with Wikipedia, everything is editable by you! Feel free to add and remove companies, apps and their details." AllyD (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Yourstory.in you have cited the tagline of "YSPages" pages.yourstory.in. This is a side project of Yourstory.in and functions as a Wikipedia-ish service focusing on Indian startups, as you point out. However, this is not to be confused with Yourstory.in, the source of the cited coverage. This is a tech-focused news website, founded in 2006 by an Indian tech journalist Coopeteer (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]

Delete founded just last year and still a start-up. Could be a notable company someday, but nothing in the article or elsewhere suggests that it's notable right now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is subjective I think. Where does it say in Wikipedia's guidelines that a 1 year old company can not be notable? Significant writeups in several mainline news sources indicates notability, I feel. Coopeteer (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]
Delete, while some sources do exist, I don't think that they go into the depth required by WP:ORG. At the moment they're a startup with some ambitious expansion plans and obviously a decent PR department. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Could you explain what problem you see with the sources? The sources appear to target a national (or larger) audiance, which seems to be what WP:ORG is looking for. The interview is pretty darn in depth, seeming to be plenty to write an article about. I'm unclear what part of WP:ORG you don't feel is met. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN business -- Y not? 15:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, please read WP:JNN. I'm the first to admit the sources aren't great. But they do seem to (easily) clear the bar of WP:N and there is enough content actually write a decent (if short) article. (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is subjective. I'm looking at the same sources, and all I see is the sort of routine coverage I'd expect from any new company with a half-competent marketing person. That sort of routine coverage doesn't usually count for much in terms of notability, which is why we don't usually have separate articles for individual games of professional sports even though they do have sources. In the end it's up to the closer to decide, but I simply don't agree that they're significant, sorry. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, don't be sorry. It's not like I'm going to be sad if this is deleted. That said, WP:N doesn't have restriction on routine sources. The agreement we've more-or-less come to is that things are notable if they are covered by reliable independent sources in non-trivial ways. And an article entirely on the subject is non-trivial the way WP:N reads. If people want to !vote to delete something because they don't like it, or think WP:N should say something different, that's fine. But WP:JNN is a pretty reasonable essay last I checked. And if WP:CORP can override WP:N is still a matter of debate. I generally assume it provides some additional comments on what makes for notable sources, but is just some additional specialized text, not something that can, or should, override our general guidelines other than in exceptional cases. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC) (note, this reply came after the relist). Hobit (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice.
Relist rationale:I would like to see responses to Hobit's posts from 24 May. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit's points are reasonable. The also may be some western bias at play. However, currently operating companies are expected to meet a higher standard, specifically WP:CORP. I normally expect possibly promotional articles to have incoming links from other articles. Officeyes has only one mainspace mention, at Rocket Internet, and it is not very impressive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, I fail to see the relevance of this criterion. It may just mean the editor is sufficiently experienced at promotional writing for WP to put them in; the clever promotional writers know to put in a reasonable bit not excessive number of links so their article gives the impression of being integrated with encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. I think it is a useful criterion to use on articles right on the edge of deletion. It the article relevant to any other article? If it is, I will go for "keep", with some thought to a merge. The founders Arvind Sivdas and Siddharth Nambiar appear to be non-Wikipedia-notable, and the lede's statement of importance "It specializes in selling products that are required by businesses and organisations" is very weak. I don't think on on a limb considering this article to be near the edge of WP:CORP.
Regarding your comments below, my sense is that this is too much a promotional article or a directory style article that would see all trading companies listed on Wikipedia. I prefer to ignore "actual importance" as a bad road to take, preferring to delight in the obscure. I prefer the GNG as a measure of notice and of whether there are sources to support content, and yes, the sources read like sponsored articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some additional sources to meet GNG. [15][16][17]. Two of the three are detailed interviews, but non-English sources are likely and probably best to deal with this business. It needs work, but deletion is not clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; the two somewhat-acceptable sources (the second Economic Times source is a passing mention) are industry publications, and the company is discussed as a startup. Miniapolis 01:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets what I consider the most critical criterion, of having good sources to show it's the major national company in a major field. (If notability has any common-sense meaning, such firms are notable ). If you don't go by common sense, and the actual importance, of the subject, and prefer to go by the GNG: the sources are tinged by PR, as most sources for articles on companies are, but they're reasonable journalistic articles, not blatant PR, giving fairly sensible coverage--my experience is that for sources like this we can make a case to either keep or reject them, depending on whether it seems reasonable that we should keep or reject the article. The GNG look rational, but it isn't, because for all non-obvious cases it's how one interprets the requirements of being substantial and independent-and that's a matter of nuance. As "gold standards" go, that's half gold and half alloy. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I agree that deletion isn't cleanup. If additional sources are there, insert them and clean up the article Dusti^*poke* 17:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 02:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Frantzis[edit]

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

Believe this person is non notable and fails GNG Gbawden (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded the article. Being chosen as a Great Floridian is a substantial state recognition and Frantzis is notable for his authorship of an account of his community's Greek sponge divers as well as for his businesses and community activism. Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I consider the prize as not significant for notability. He's one of the earlier winners, and the best list I can find is at List of Great Floridians--I think based on what is said there, most of the ones would not qualify for WP articles. There doesn't seem anything else that might qualify, 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While I do believe his recognition in the Great Floridian program contributes somewhat to notability, there are no sources cited to contribute anything else to his notability. From what I can tell, he was a local businessman and an author of a non-fiction book; even combined I don't think it's sufficient to pass GNG. —Darkwind (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: What I meant by "no sources" is the sources cited do not establish notability, as they are not significant coverage even if we would consider them reliable. —Darkwind (talk) 01:34, 30 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) 14:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC. The Odyssey of Hellenism in America, Sponge Industry Seeks Federal Aid, Plans Set for Bringinging 100 Greek Sponge Divers to Reopen Idle Beds. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment I made some minor improvements to the article. I do not know if it is enough to save the article; I’ll leave it to the administrators if it meets WP:GNG. But if it does, the article at least looks better than it did before. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Going to say keep; has a claim and some sources to back it up. While its not stellar, more information is likely to be found with some effort. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:49, 7 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 and redirect to David McGill. Thank you to PamD, who has already merged everything over to the McGill dab. (nac) Ish dar ian 21:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David MacGill[edit]

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

Dab page with only red links, or "see also" for other spellings (declined speedy; attempts to redirect reverted) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to David McGill (disambiguation), fully protect redirect, trout User:Boleyn for reverting this twice back to its own disambig page. There would be nothing wrong whatsoever with listing these two, potentially notable, people in the David McGill page anyway - it's an alternative spelling. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 valid entries, both meeting MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION; and 2 valid see alsos. I could have understood a merge discussion (although I would have disagreed as this has valid entries in its own right), but not deletion. Boleyn (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which articles link to David MacGill? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No articles link to David MacGill, there's not meant to as it's a dab page. But if you click on David MacGill (athlete) and David MacGill (politician) then 'what links here', you can see which articles link to those. This then confirms they meet MOS:DABRL. I've included a blue link in each line which meet MOS:DABR or MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those two guidelines are irrelevant. Yes, it's valid to have a disambig page with redlinks. It isn't, however, any good to have one with only redlinks. Put those two redlinks on the David McGill (disambiguation) page, and follow the rest of my previous comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine to have a disambiguation page with only entries that have their blue links in the description (that meet MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION). That too disambiguates Wikipedia ambiguity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Boleyn: Why don't you just create stubs for those two articles? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was my plan for this evening... Giant Snowman 15:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nathan, why would I? The page meets the guidelines and helps those looking up the 2 David MacGills. Actually whether they turn out to be notable is irrelevant to whether they are valid disambiguation entries. Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or keep: a dab consisting of only redlinks is useless and there is no point in disambiguating pages that don't exist. As noted above, the two links to the MOS pages are irrelevant. We don't have dab pages for non-existent articles. GiantSnowman has stated they plan to create stubs for the 2 redlinks. If that happens by the end of this AfD, then this dab is useful, and should be kept. I leave it to the closer to decide whether this comment is actually a delete or keep, as I have no plans to revisit this page. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with David McGill - I've boldly added the two redlinked MacGills to that page already and amended its opening line to show that its scope includes both names. All that's needed now is to make a redirect from McG to MacG. BUT in a case where this option wasn't available I would defend the existence of a dab page like this, which resolves ambiguity between two or more people who are already redlinked in existing articles. MOS:DABMENTION justifies their presence on the dab page, and it seems inconsistent if we then say that the dab page cannot exist because there happens not to be a bluelinked entry on it as yet. When someone has taken time to disentangle similarly-named persons, a dab page like this is useful and should not be deleted through a narrow interpretation of rules. WP:IAR if necessary, but in this case there is a less controversial option. PamD 16:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David McGill, and someone please create David MacGill (athlete) and David MacGill (politician). If these people are at all notable, then it can't possibly be that hard to at least make very short entries on them. bd2412 T 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:DABMENTION. No preference on whether the content is kept here or merged with the McGill dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge. I'd lean toward merge, since there's an obvious opportunity for confusion between McGill/MacGill. But I want to affirm my agreement with others that the disambiguation page is legitimate. Wikipedia has some information, however minor, to offer to the user who looks up David MacGill the athlete, or David MacGill the politician, and there's no reason not to help those users find that information. That's why we allow redlinks on dabs. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - both stubs now created, and because the Canadian Olympian looks to be a 'McGill' rather than a 'MacGill' I am leaning towards merge. Giant Snowman 18:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the politician, whom I've just moved to "(lawyer)" as a better epithet, is spelled Makgill in some sources, and his father Mackgill - just to add a bit more colour to this tale! PamD 21:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the entries but merge to David McGill (disambiguation). It's worrying that so many editors dismiss MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION as irrelevant. Even before the stubs were created, this would still have been a valid disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because one could easily confuse a MacGill with a McGill, but possibly speedy close since the argument for deletion (that David MacGill (athlete) and David MacGill (lawyer) were redlinks) is no longer the case. (And isn't this the wrong venue anyway? AfD is for articles, not disambiguation pages.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Above arguments based on two (redlink) MOS:DABMENTION MacGills have been overtaken by one turning out to be a McGill if the single ref is correct? can someone fix the two article entries linking to David MacGill (athlete) to link to David McGill (athlete). Then we see there's only one entry outside of See also. I refrained from making the edit as... Widefox; talk 13:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - second ref also supported "McGill" not "MacGill", so I fixed the two articles & DAB. Widefox; talk 13:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David McGill (disambiguation) per name confusion. A speedy close would also help, (and as technicality to address nom MOS:DABMENTION would have been fine to keep both reds until we found out one is misspelt)Widefox; talk 13:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - For a single entry on a variant, merging is the best option. The page can easily hold it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:57, 7 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 19:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Colby[edit]

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

Two six year old hoaxes! There isn't a single reliable source about either a privateer "George Colby" or his "Colby Pirates". The source that was added to the article, three years after creation, [18], is a copy of the Wikipedia article. (If deleted as hoaxes, they would be near the top of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia as being two of the hoaxes that survived the longest on here...). Fram (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: Colby Pirates

Comment Best google books hit I could find referenced a Michael Colby in a production of Pirates of Penzance. There do seem to have been legitimate pirates on the Great Lakes ,though, so a little more investigation may be in order. [19] 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as hoaxes. The deciding point for me was this early line from the articles' creator: "They were lead by George Colbywho was also known as Colonial Colonel Cheese Colby." [20]. Make sure you get the entries in List of privateers and Template:Pirates too, aargh! 24.151.116.25 (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as not having sufficient WP:Reliable Sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Buckshot6. I couldn't find any assessment of the one book cited. If it was important, we can find reliable sources and re-create it sometime later. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Suspicious is one thing, but I'm going to agree per above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:59, 7 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) 15:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Bautista-Teodoro[edit]

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

Considering Navotas is independent of any province, we'd have to view WP:POLITICIAN as if Navotas is a "province". In this case, she hasn't attained the highest position in a city or as a congresswoman. Also, it currently fails WP:RS. –H T D 10:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 13:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 13:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 17:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough reliable sources to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient significant coverage of the subject from non-primary reliable sources for the subject to be considered notable as defined by GNG and ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:19, 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 SNOW closed as Keep . bd2412 T 15:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flogging a dead horse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this years ago, but the result was 'no consensus'. As the entry merely gives meaning, etymology and a synonymous phrase, this is a clear delete under WP:NOTDICT. Belongs on Wiktionary, not here. Bueller 007 (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Plausible search terms shouldn't be redlinks. If it belongs on Wiktionary then it should be a soft redirect to Wiktionary.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Wiktionary entry is a miniscule stub which is no substitute for this. As I understand it, that's their policy — they don't like expansive, encyclopedic entries. The consequence is that, if you google the phrase, our article is the #1 hit while the Wikitionary entry is a long way down the list at about #38. When it comes to horses, we should back winners, not losers. Warden (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The real dispute between users such as Ryulong and Ansei, seems to be a matter of geography — something about the Ryukyu Islands. These nominations therefore seem to be a case of WP:POINT and WP:HARASS. Warden (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such dispute. Tenmei/Ansei is banned from various pages on Japanese history, politics, and geography and I have had no dispute with him prior. I merely found that he may be violating one of his multiple arbitration committee bans and that's what happened in the past couple of days. Do not assume that just because I raised the issue that his widely construed ban should be defined more that he and I are ind ispute and this is a violation of WP:POINT or WP:HARASS. You have no assumption of good faith here and neither does Tenmei/Ansei/whatever account he chooses next.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Warden: You are incorrect, and you clearly need to read WP:AGF. Please base your argument on the merit of the article rather than a personal attack against motivations. These articles are clearly outside the realm of any territorial dispute. Ansei/Tenmei has created hundreds or thousands of articles; Ryulong and I have nominated only a handful ones that do not belong in an encyclopedia because they are idioms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You may wish to consider reading that article as well. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as a phrase and as a concept, there's considerably more than a dictionary definition here, especially since it goes beyond this phrase to the concept. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an article on the concept it should be titled something like: "Wasting one's time and effort on a hopeless cause." -Borock (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't a dictionary definition, and is clearly outside Wiktionary's scope and within Wikipedia's scope. Acroterion (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~DELETE ALL PER WP:NOTADICTIONARY~~ :-) -Borock (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which says: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." -Borock (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons others have already stated. Ohwrotcod (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The real dead horse is WP:NOTADICTIONARY. -Borock (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Keep per WP:DEADHORSE... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Ha ha! You funny!!! Carrite (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Piece is about a historic expression and it goes well beyond a Dictionary definition. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Time to get rid of WP is not a dictionary?-Borock (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Nothing has changed from the last time deletion was considered. It still should be kept, and not deleted. It is not in the dictionary. It is a concept, not just a phrase. It is well documented and well sourced. It is a lucid discussion of an important concept — which would seem to include the current effort to revisit a closed question. The claim of "Not Dictionary" ignores the fact that this is a CONCEPT and an IDIOM. "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subjecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Make_a_mountain_out_of_a_molehill_(3rd_nomination)&action=edit&section=1#, uch as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." One could quibble with the motives of the moving editors, but it is irrelevant and I will WP:AGF for now. In any event, it does not change the merits of the discussion, and this is an obvious keeper to all but the few who will not be convinced otherwise. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has had numerous mentions on shows like "Says You" on NPR and many people use the etymology and description here as cites to first publication. Besides, its a rather well-known idiom which can be sourced easier if so many people weren't using the expression. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see anything on the page that violates WP:NOTDICT. There are no issues that I would consider requiring a fundamental re-write; this is more than a simple Wikitionary-like entry. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 08:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article, not just a short dictionary definition of the expression. Dream Focus 12:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sound article.--Auric talk 14:51, 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 SNOW Keep . bd2412 T 15:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Square peg in a round hole[edit]

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

Definition, etymology and usage. This is a dictionary entry. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Belongs on Wiktionary. Bueller 007 (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 13:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK. These nominations seem to relate to a geographical dispute and seem to have frivolous, irrelevant character contrary to WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT. Warden (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with any "geographical dispute". It is true that both Bueller 007 and I found these articles in Tenmei's edit history (Tenmei stick to one damn account, Ansei or this one) but we are not working in unison and it has nothing to do with the articles that Tenmei/Ansei is banned from. They do, however, have to do with the fact that Tenmei/Ansei has a habit of creating these badly written dictionary definition pages and using them in his arguments.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Warden: you are incorrect, and you clearly need to read WP:AGF. Please base your argument on the merit of the article rather than a personal attack against motivations. These articles are clearly outside the realm of any territorial dispute. Ansei/Tenmei has created hundreds or thousands of articles; Ryulong and I have nominated only a handful ones that do not belong in an encyclopedia because they are idioms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You may wish to consider reading that article as well. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per previous comments, this appears to have nothing to do with dictionary definitions, but appears to be part of a pointy set of inappropriate AfD nominations. Acroterion (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "pointy set of inappropriate AFD nominations". I found that Tenmei/Ansei had written a handful of these articles that are just definitions of idioms and Bueller 007 apparently did the same after realizing what I had done.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Anyone could clearly tell that these have nothing to do with a territorial dispute. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going with my comments on the other articles of this nature, it's more than just a dictionary definition. I say keep it.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historic idiomatic expression of sufficient stature to support encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for foregoing reasons. Well above whatever threshold we're talking about here. Way more than mere definition. Could the article be improved? Yes, but this is not an all or nothing proposition. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is movement to modify NOTDICT because the difference in focus from wiktionary. The article may not be perfect, but it goes beyond a mere definition. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than a DICDEF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't just a dictionary definition, its a proper article. Dream Focus 12:43, 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 SNOW Keep . bd2412 T 15:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Takes two to tango (idiom)[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT Bueller 007 (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (message) @ 13:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per previous comments, this appears to have nothing to do with dictionary definitions, but appears to be part of a pointy set of inappropriate AfD nominations. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed have to do with dictionary definitions. The fact that they were all authored by the same user is irrelevant.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel the same way about this article as I do for the one on flogging a dead horse. It's more than just a dictionary definition, including history. I think it should stay. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEADHORSE is a personal opinion essay rather than a guideline or policy and thus doesn't have determinative power at AfD. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Historic idiomatic expression of sufficient stature to support encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep for all the foregoing reasons. Historic idiomatic expression of sufficient stature to support encyclopedic coverage. No doubt the Doubting Thomases will be moving next month to redelete this. This is a case of spinning our wheels. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Detailed origin and popular usage stemming from Nixon; exactly the kind of information you'd expect at Wikipedia. It is not just a dictionary definition; and its more than a mere 1 liner on etymology. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -per ChrisG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't just a dictionary definition, its a proper article. Dream Focus 12:43, 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 SNOW Keep . bd2412 T 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salad days[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously nominated twice for deletion. Arguments in favour of keeping the article are very poor, in my opinion. This article is just a dictionary definition, a handful usage examples (as would be found in a dictionary), and some cultural references. This fails WP:NOTDICT. Really, what is needed is to redirect Salad days to Salad Days, and add a single line at the top of Salad Days explaining what the phrase means. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shakespeare's influence#Influence on the English language forsooth and link from the dab page. Then redirect Green-eyed monster (which current points to Jealousy) there and god knoweth how many other expressions. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 13:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator proposes redirection which is not achieved by deletion. See WP:SK, "proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". The page was give a clear Keep just a year ago and the nomination brings forward no new evidence. This seems to be disruption per WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Warden (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Warden: you are incorrect, and you clearly need to read WP:AGF. Please base your argument on the merit of the article rather than a personal attack against motivations. These articles are clearly outside the realm of any territorial dispute. Ansei/Tenmei has created hundreds or thousands of articles; Ryulong and I have nominated only a handful ones that do not belong in an encyclopedia because they are idioms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You may wish to consider reading that article as well. In addition, it is a joke to call this "disruption". My last call for deletion was over three years ago. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per previous comments, this appears to have nothing to do with dictionary definitions, but appears to be part of a pointy set of inappropriate AfD nominations. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going with my comments on the other articles of this nature, it's more than just a dictionary definition. I say keep it.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Obviously more than a definition. One more ill-conceived and not supported request for deletion. Opposing this is One small step for man and one large step for Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Noted expression and cemented in culture; while it is not the best article it is not a mere definition. When the Queen referred to the line in her Silver Jubilee; it was interesting, but more so because that line with that term as endured as the closing line to that speech and the most remarkable fragment of it. The quote (which is not cited at this moment) is found in books like Fifty Years the Queen: A Tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on Her Golden Jubilee and other places; even viewable on Google Book searches. The article may have its flaws, but this is far more than a dictionary definition. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Two previous failed noms should tell the nominator something. Per Doug C. and others above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't just a dictionary definition, its a proper article, complete with references from reliable sources. Dream Focus 12:44, 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 SNOW Keep . bd2412 T 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Barking up the wrong tree[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT Bueller 007 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 13:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK. As noted above, this seems to be part of a bundle of nominations related to a geographical dispute and seem to have frivolous, irrelevant character contrary to WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT. Warden (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Warden: you are incorrect, and you clearly need to read WP:AGF. Please base your argument on the merit of the article rather than a personal attack against motivations. These articles are clearly outside the realm of any territorial dispute. Ansei/Tenmei has created hundreds or thousands of articles; Ryulong and I have nominated only a handful ones that do not belong in an encyclopedia because they are idioms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You may wish to consider reading that article as well. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per previous comments, this appears to have nothing to do with dictionary definitions, but appears to be part of a pointy set of inappropriate AfD nominations. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going with my comments on the other articles of this nature, it's more than just a dictionary definition. I say keep it.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced piece on a historic idiomatic expression of sufficient stature to support encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The motion was a waste of time, but keeping the article isn't. Way more than a definition. Moveants are barking up the wrong tree, and paddling up the wrong river. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dictionaries don't deal in idiomatic expressions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't just a dictionary definition, its a proper article. Stop barking up the wrong tree with these misguided mass nominations of things. Dream Focus 12:45, 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 SNOW Keep . bd2412 T 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Throw out the baby with the bath water[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT Bueller 007 (talk). 08:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase is not in the dictionary. It is well sourced, useful and notable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC):[reply]

Keep, certainly applies on wikipedia!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT. Just because it has sources doesn't mean it fits with the project's scope.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim of "Not Dictionary" ignores the fact that this is a CONCEPT and an IDIOM. "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, uch as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (post) @ 13:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK. As noted above, this seems to be part of a bundle of nominations related to a geographical dispute and seems to have frivolous, irrelevant character contrary to WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT. Warden (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Warden: you are incorrect, and you clearly need to read WP:AGF. Please base your argument on the merit of the article rather than a personal attack against motivations. These articles are clearly outside the realm of any territorial dispute. Ansei/Tenmei has created hundreds or thousands of articles; Ryulong and I have nominated only a handful ones that do not belong in an encyclopedia because they are idioms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You may wish to consider reading that article as well. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per previous comments, this appears to have nothing to do with dictionary definitions, but appears to be part of a pointy set of inappropriate AfD nominations.(And on this one, doesn't anybody here have any sense of irony?) Acroterion (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going with my comments on the other articles of this nature, it's more than just a dictionary definition. I say keep it.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced piece on a historic idiomatic expression of sufficient stature to support encyclopedic coverage. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tossing this out would be like throwing the . . . . . ...... well, you get the idea, I'm sure. Carptrash (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ironically, WP:BATHWATER may apply, doubly. We have some history, usage and adaptation to back up the definition, it may not be complete but deleting this at NOTDICT seems to be showing a lack of understand for the spirit of NOTDICT and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One suspects an ulterior motive here, a somewhat impure nomination. In any case, this is not a DICDEF, as dictionaries deal in words and not in idiomatic expressions; we should. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't just a dictionary definition, its a proper article. Dream Focus 12:42, 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 SNOW Keep . bd2412 T 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talking past each other[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT Bueller 007 (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (rap) @ 13:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK. As noted above, this seems to be part of a bundle of nominations related to a geographical dispute and seem to have frivolous, irrelevant character contrary to WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT. Warden (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Warden: you are incorrect, and you clearly need to read WP:AGF. Please base your argument on the merit of the article rather than a personal attack against motivations. These articles are clearly outside the realm of any territorial dispute. Ansei/Tenmei has created hundreds or thousands of articles; Ryulong and I have nominated only a handful ones that do not belong in an encyclopedia because they are idioms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You may wish to consider reading that article as well. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per previous comments, this appears to have nothing to do with dictionary definitions, but appears to be part of a pointy set of inappropriate AfD nominations. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going with my comments on the other articles of this nature, it's more than just a dictionary definition. I say keep it.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The merits of this piece as a sourceable subject are weaker than the others of this type up for debate today. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the better ones, IMO, as I like the bits about Socrates, Obama and the chicken talking to the duck. For an example of an entire book which develops the topic, see Talking Past Each Other: Problems of Cross-cultural Communication. Warden (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Contains usage and origin sources, goes beyond dictionary definition. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warden & ChrisG; not a DICDEF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't just a dictionary definition, its a proper article, complete with references from reliable sources. Dream Focus 12:45, 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 SNOW Keep . bd2412 T 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make a mountain out of a molehill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. I nominated this years ago but the result was 'no consensus'. I think it is a clear delete under WP:NOTDICT. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)h[reply]

Keep. Nothing has changed from the last two times this was considered. It still should be kept, and not deleted. It is not in the dictionary. It is a concept, not just a phrase. It is well documented and sourced. The claim of "Not Dictionary" ignores the fact that this is a CONCEPT and an IDIOM. "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, uch as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (cackle) @ 13:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK. As noted above, this seems to be part of a bundle of nominations related to a geographical dispute and seem to have frivolous, irrelevant character contrary to WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT. Warden (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Warden: you are incorrect, and you clearly need to read WP:AGF. Please base your argument on the merit of the article rather than a personal attack against motivations. These articles are clearly outside the realm of any territorial dispute. Ansei/Tenmei has created hundreds or thousands of articles; Ryulong and I have nominated only a handful ones that do not belong in an encyclopedia because they are idioms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You may wish to consider reading that article as well. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are incorrect, and you clearly need to read WP:AGF. Please base your argument on the merit of the article rather than a personal attack against motivations. These articles are clearly outside the realm of any territorial dispute. Ansei/Tenmei has created hundreds or thousands of articles; Ryulong and I have nominated only a handful ones that do not belong in an encyclopedia because they are idioms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You may wish to consider reading that article as well. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly not a dictionary definition, but a sourced discussion of the subject. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a tag team. Bueller 007 and I have done this independently so stop assuming bad faith and stick to one account.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously it is more than a "dictionary definition", somebody please format the bare URLs though.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going with my comments on the other articles of this nature, it's more than just a dictionary definition. I say keep it.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historic idiomatic expression of sufficient stature to support encyclopedic coverage. Sourcing of this piece as it sits is weaker than it should be, but suffice it to say that an idiom this old has generated sufficient scholarly commentary over the centuries to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is my favorite phrase but it is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd go farther than Doug C. in describing these noms. Anyway, not a DECDEF, idiomatic expression, proper subject for an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Idioms are a thing apart from many other forms of communication. Not only do they carry a denotation that may be dealt with a a dictionary definition, but in a cultural context they carry implications, associations and connotations. These are especially useful for those who are either not native speakers of English, or who come from other places. Because we are presumably addressing the needs of a worldwide audience, this type of wikipedia article is especially useful. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't just a dictionary definition, its a proper article, complete with references from reliable sources. Dream Focus 12:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the merits - there's more here than the typical DICDEF. That said, given this discussion, we might also need to tag the article as self-referential. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:48, 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 George C. Marshall Institute. L Faraone 02:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politicizing Science (book)[edit]

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

unnotable book serioushat 08:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards a merge to George C. Marshall Institute. So far I'm finding some cites, but not much as far as notability goes. The organization seems to be notable (granted I haven't looked at it that deeply), but I think that it would be reasonable enough to create a bibliography section and incorporate some of this information there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 10:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search produces no secondary RS coverage. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NBOOK. Not opposed to a redirect as suggested by Tokyogirl79, providing the George C. Marshall Institute article adds a bibliography section which includes this title.--JayJasper (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Does not meet NBOOK, and while it may be odd to push it to the page, its probably the best that can be done besides deleting the content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:01, 7 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ioby[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There is only one reliable source, and the second source is questionable. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the two sources in the article, I found this in the Christian Science Monitor. It's an interview, but there's a good exposition of the organisation from the CSM writer as well. Inks.LWC, I'm not sure why you think the second source is unreliable - the Wall Street Journal is usually considered a reliable source. Could you elaborate on this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that was poor wording on my part; I meant that WSJ was the reliable source and the other was questionable. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense, thanks. :) The Dowser reference does look like a press release, although from the about page, Dowser does seem to be independent of Ioby. If it isn't a press release, it's doing a good job of disguising itself as one. As to Dowser's reliability in general, It looks like it might just pass muster at RSN, but I would be interested to see the discussion... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News search brings up quite a few articles.[21] Search results can be mined for references. LK (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting with potential. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:19, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carel Ruijsch van Dugteren[edit]

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

I don't think this person is notable enough. He fails WP:SOLDIER. I don't think being and ADC to a prince counts. Maybe being one of the first to liberate a concentration camp does? Gbawden (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is notable for his role in Operation Amherst and as an aide-de-camp to the Dutch commander-in-chief, as well as for his role in the liberation of Westerbork liberation camp. WP:SOLDIER is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. I do not see a clear reason for deletion. Jvhertum (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any good reason to retain the article. Junior officer with no significant decorations and no significant posts other than as an ADC. His war service doesn't seem particularly remarkable. Many soldiers took part in Operation Amherst and in the liberation of Nazi camps - unless he did something particularly significant within these operations (and there is no evidence that he did) then he's just not especially notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 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, czar · · 06:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It claims "He also served as aide-de-camp to Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands during Operation Market Garden." But Operation Market Garden doesn't mention him or Prince Bernhard, suggesting their role was rather minor. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Necrothesp. Fails SOLDIER, and notability does not rub off of Prince Bernhard. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG, let alone WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Peacemaker67. Had this been better referenced I would have argued to keep it. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:47, 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 delete. Mkdw ^talk 01:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Moe Doe[edit]

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

Non notable and no sources in the article. Koala15 (talk) 04:49, 24 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 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, czar · · 06:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no sources in the article. I could not find anything in reliable sources. The official website is now a parked domain. As it stands, the article itself makes not clear claim of notability simply asserting working with other notable artists without stating what he actually did. There is no discography. There is no inidcation that his Uneon company actually did anything. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP with no sources or any sources to be found. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:05, 7 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 01:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syler[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 04:39, 24 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:48, 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, czar · · 06:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Referencing in the article is poor. The best is the Newsday item which is really a local piece. This unsigned artist has not received the significant coverage in multiple indepedent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Referencing is poor and searches yield people with the last name Syler, but not this Syler. Article serves as promotional vehicle for Scott Seiler. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 7 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 02:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Miles[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Seemingly part of a group of self-promotors including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg W. Locke CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:43, 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, czar · · 06:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence in the article or on Google News that the topic meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Something close to Greg W. Locke, so I'm going to require proper RSes and discount those as not-independent. As of right now, it doesn't seem to meet BAND or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:11, 7 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. No prejudice towards a redirect. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shut the City Down[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:06, 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, czar · · 06:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dorrough#Mixtapes. Plausible search term, but I'm not finding sufficient coverage to warrant an individual article. Gong show 21:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS by a country mile. Not even close to being a notable mixtape. STATic message me! 23:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dorrough. Does not warrant a split as it fails N and GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable mixtape. Koala15 (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gosei (Japanese diaspora)[edit]

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

This is a term that has very little usage in any media, only picked up by original author Ansei (a.k.a. Tenmei) in whatever research he performed. There is no analogous article at the Japanese Wikipedia, which seems to cut off at the Yonsei terminology. The only other project where this article exists is at Simple English where it has been authored by Ansei himself. —Ryulong (琉竜) 06:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Issei, Nisei and Sansei are needed. Yonsei, very likely unnecessary. Gosei certainly unnecessary. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the few JA related articles where an equivalent in JA Wikipedia is not needed (overseas diaspora generally has very weak connection to Japan) and it is referenced in a number of legitimate sources by Ansei. It is accepted as a term in discussions about Japanese-American history. I am willing to see this article kept. It can certainly be better written and improved. Jun Kayama 13:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei/Ansei, stop assuming bad faith.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Concur with Ryulong in this case. Current AfD should be judged on its own merits. Unrelated AfDs have no place here for discussion. Jun Kayama 13:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm assuming good faith that the sources cited support the article and that they used the term "Gosei." I'd say that raises the article to the keep level. Borock (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went through a handful and the word "Gosei" was used all of once.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then disregard my vote. In my opinion the topic deserves about one sentence in Assimilation (sociology), but that's not the same as a vote to delete. Borock (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Borock -- Ryulong's summary assessment is inaccurate. A quick review shows that Gosei is explicit in a range of cited reliable sources here + here + here + here + here + here +here + here here + here. --Tenmei (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gosei is cited in numerous instances and is part of the lexicon of Japanese-American studies. However, this last generation is extremely small in number, and lacks achievements equivalent to Issei, Nisei, so all references will be solely to the fact they exist as a demographic and nothing more. Jun Kayama 13:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- When the term like Gosei is published in the US Congressional Record, does it not become an example WP:Inherent notability? -- see "Japantown Represents More than 100 Years of a Unique Immigrant Experience," inserted into the Congressional Record, September 19, 2006; excerpt, "... the emergence of the activist third generation — the Sansei — who are now "baby boomers" and the parents and grandparents of the fourth and fifth generations — the Yonsei and Gosei"? --Tenmei (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's another book source discussing the concept: Mothering, Education, and Ethnicity: The Transformation of Japanese American Culture. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (ec) Although not as commonly used as parallel terms for previous generations, this still seems to be a Japanese-English crossover term that will generate user inquiry. The concept is best covered encyclopedically, as the current imperfect article demonstrates. Keep under the policy of WP:IAR, use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important concept that deserves an article. More than a mere dictionary definition. As to this request, YGBSM! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ryulong suggested on my talk page that he does not like my comment. My evaluation in this article was based solely upon this article. While one could WP:duck conclude that the tandem and serial requests for deletion were part of a larger campaign, I have repeatedly stated that I would WP:AGF. Obviously, he reads NOT A DICTIONARY and WORD in a manner differently than I, and I would have to say that is his right. However, when the serial requests for deletion on other articles are ill advised, and could easily be interpreted as harassment, even if that was not the intent. I gather that he has gone to WP:ANI, and there is nothing I can do about that. I meant no offense, but I will not be bullied into a retraction when there is nothing to retract. I will respect his right to post his opinion, and I expect reciprocity. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. I suggested on your talk page that you re-examine your view because your keep !vote mentions "dictionary definition" which is not what this particular AFD is about. It just seems to be something you copy-pasted from a series of other AFDs.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as discussed above. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 21:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

*Keep - WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to have been followed, and this is most certainly not a mere dictionary definition. The article has some history, but lacks more sources from paywalled works like this and a work on teaching idioms. Its also interesting to note that Wikipedia has one of the best histories and coverage of the idiom; surpassing dictionaries and other word sites including Wiktionary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Wrong AFD, I didn't intend this as a response to Gosei. Forget this; it was supposed to be at the idiom for "making a mountain out of a molehill". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC) * Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This debate was never under dicdef. People have just been copy pasting their responses from the other related AFDs for articles produced by Tenmei/Ansei/Enkyo2 here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:15, 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 keep. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teach fish how to swim[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT —Ryulong (琉竜) 05:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bueller. You've read WP:JUSTAVOTE, right? It's better to give at least some form of rationale. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly obvious case of a dictionary definition. So obvious, in fact, that it shouldn't need to be stated, but I take your point. Bueller 007 (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator - this falls foul of WP:DICDEF. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the other related nominations when I made my delete recommendation, and I considered the article on its own merits. Due to the controversy that has sprung up around these nominations, I think a more detailed rationale is called for here. Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we can have some articles about words per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The difference is that "such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term". The one-sentence "origins" section would seem to be an example of this, but it is sourced to a primary source, and I can't find other sources that discuss the social or historical significance of the term. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK. As noted above, this seems to be part of a bundle of nominations related to a geographical dispute and seem to have frivolous, irrelevant character contrary to WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT. Warden (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted where? This has nothing to do with a "geographical dispute". This article may indeed be one of several authored by a certain user but it does not meet any "speedy keep" guidelines.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per previous comments, this appears to have nothing to do with dictionary definitions, but appears to be part of a pointy set of inappropriate AfD nominations. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tenmei is someone who's been admonished and banned by the arbitration committee on two separate occassions. And editors previously uninvolved with him are agreeing that this is not a suitable article. The fact that he's continuing his previously found by arbcom to be obstinant editing practices of making unnecessary tables in these discussions should not undermine the fact that this article has no place on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong indicates that User:Ryulong was himself admonished by arbcom and advised to behave in a decorous manner, avoiding baiting and disruption. Warden (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How lovely of you to bring that up. I fail to see how making 3 AFDs is disruptive.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going with my comments on the other articles of this nature, it's more than just a dictionary definition. I say keep it.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Delete - Although it is tempting to copy-paste a generic Keep rationale for this entire lot of nominations, several of which are pretty badly considered, it doesn't seem to me that the significance of this phrase or its sourceability is sufficient to support more than the stubbish dictionary definition we see here. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actual point of WP:DICDEF is that we should combine topics which are essentially the same rather than separating them by headword(s). So, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, shouldn't we just merge this with Teaching grandmother to suck eggs? Warden (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of English-language idioms for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article tells us that it's actually Latin: piscem natare docem. I'd not heard it before this AFD and reckon the English idiom is Teaching grandmother to suck eggs. Warden (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a great article. But WP:Notable per WP:RS], and the lack of completeness is not a reason to delete it. However, we have some history, usage and adaptation to back up the definition, it may not be complete but deleting this at NOTDICT seems to be showing a lack of understanding for the spirit of NOTDICT and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS, even though I assume WP:AGF. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as idiomatic expression, not covered in dictionaries, proper subject for us, trouts to nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a poorly written article on an idiomatic expression that is barely known of in English. It is easily the weakest of the articles in this group, which is why I haven't withdrawn it like I have the other three.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That rationale is not the grounds on which you nominated it. If it needs improving WP:FIXIT Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no worth in fixing it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DICDEF. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition. Edison (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This seems to be a part of long-standing pattern of pointy nominations. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 09:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming bad faith.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Teaching grandmother to suck eggs per Warden above. (So what if the nomination is pointy or in bad faith? It's not particularly disruptive: In this case, at least, it's still valid.) Ansh666 00:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegitimisation[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT —Ryulong (琉竜) 05:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That an article is poorly written is not a reason for deletion. At the very least, this article should be merged into Legitimation. Neelix (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK. As noted above, this seems to be part of a bundle of nominations related to a geographical dispute and seem to have frivolous, irrelevant character contrary to WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT. Warden (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should really not copy-paste your arguments from other pages when they have no context here. I will admit I found this article and the others I nominated for deletion by going through a single author's contributions, but only after I discovered that he had created several other poorly formatted articles that violated core Wikipedia policies.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case I think Ryulong has a point, but I don't see grounds for deletion, but rather incentive for improvement. As with the others in this series, it is overshadowed by an attempt to make a point through AfD. Acroterion (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was no WP:POINT to be made. After realizing that one of the many phrases that Tenmei/Ansei uses as if it were a policy or guideline page was authored by himself, I put it up at AFD. I then went to see if he did the same with other phrases that he's done and also a few of these terms that I found dubious to be proper articles as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following the above discussion I believe we should keep it. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 17:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Keep The concept has roots in Social Psychology and goes well beyond a dictionary definition. See, e.g. [22]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IP 24.151.116.25 (may I call you "24" for short?) has it exactly right. This is a legitimate, big-boy social psychology and political science concept, whether one spells it with an S or a Z... The current piece is horrible, but this is an encyclopedic topic that will develop over time. For an example of a book not only dealing with the concept of delegitimization at length, but using the word in the title, see Colin Schindler, Israel and the European Left: Between Solidarity and Delegitimization. (Continuum, 2011). Carrite (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep Not a great article, but it is an important subject of political discourse and meets WP:Notable standards. Already it is more than a mere dictionary definition, and I expect it will develop over time. 19:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep Goes beyond dictionary definition and the article from the International Journal of Conflict and Violence is lends seriousness to this word as a major term. Though I'm sure some combination of social psychology work is fair for citing the term. [23] [24][25] We got works from Harvard and Tel-Aviv professors in the first Google cites that go into detail, the article may have problems, but the concept is accepted and notable. NOTDICT is not intended for this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The articles found by ChrisGualtieri show this is a notable concept discussed theoretically from a psychological perspective besides the plethora of usage. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GNG comment. One of those articles is a chapter from a book called The psychology of legitimacy. A merge with legitimacy (political) could be considered. Given that full papers exist on the topic of delegitimization alone, it probably should have a separate article according to WP:GNG. Delegitimization has a separate entry [26] in The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology for example. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV comment. And if you're worried that this might be a partisan concept promoted only by some Israeli researchers, rest assured that it has case studies in other countries and conflicts, for example this paper dealing with Italy during Fascism and today. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there appears to be enough information out there about the concept to write more than a dictionary definition of the word itself. Therefore, WP:NOTDICT is not adequate grounds for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Might be a candidate for removal as DICDEF, but the article goes well beyond what a dictionary would do. A better case than any other the nom had listed, but still not enough for a deletion Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shanna Malcolm[edit]

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

I do not see anything making for notability here, but admittedly I have a rather high bar for people running youtube channels--I think we need stronger coverage than here or national-level awards. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, did not find any significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources, therefore subject appears to fail WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:32, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Menon (businessman)[edit]

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

The page and the related company page is used for soap boxing. Amit (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , Not a notable person. Only self created (personnel weblinks)provided in references Jussychoulex (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly placed by COI editors as a promotional piece about a marginally notable individual. Toddst1 (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. My first thought was to see if there was some mention at the company's article - but look at that, it was deleted as unambiguous promotion. I seem to detect a pattern... UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:33, 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 19:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Stadtlander[edit]

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

I came across this via another AfD for another article created by the same editor and found that there were a ton of issues with the article. How this made it through AfC, I honestly can't tell you. None of the sources on the article in its original state ([27]) were usable as a reliable source in the slightest. The most usable one comes from a local paper that doesn't look to be all that usable as a reliable source either and that's ultimately all we really have to go by, so I left it on the article. A search brought up one more link ([28] by the same paper, but even if we include the local paper that's still not enough to show notability for this author. I can't see where any of his voice acting roles are considered to be overwhelmingly notable either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this person is notable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It might be worthwhile for editors evaluating this article to look at the history for this version before the removal of puffery. I was puzzled by the lone remaining reference when first looking at the article as it made no mention of him as an author or voice actor. To be clear, there is nothing on the Swampscott Reader article that establishes that the Jason Stadtlander in the news coverage is the same as the one covered in this Wikipedia article. If it's in there, I missed it. In any case, even if it is the same person, the coverage is not about what he is notable for, and is just coverage of local community activity in a local community paper. The two books listed do not establish notability. The first is a self-published book with no critical coverage in independent reliable sources. The second hasn't even been published yet, and it's not clear what this small publisher does as their site claims they are "a small, independent publisher of books providing a label and resource to the independent publisher with a unique view on the world around us and beyond". -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though I do agree that the author has no notability what-so-ever, (and in fact had considered applying for deletion when I stumbled upon the article myself last week) I do question Whpq's statement regarding 'self-published' authors as in today's publishing industry there has been a very big movement away from traditional publishers (even with notable authors)... so I do not think that has anything to do with what makes this author invalid for wiki. The pure fact that he simply hasn't created much of interest is my argument. HighMerrits (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - With the movement to lots of self-publishing, there is a plethora of non-notable self-published books. Self-publishing has no editorial oversight in selecting the work that a regular publisher would. A self-published book can be notable, but there's a large barrier to overcome. For establishing notability, if I find that I cannot come up with coverage for a self-published work, I am much more confident that the work is not notable versus a book published through a major publisher where I found no coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Good point Whpq, I hadn't considered that aspect. Question, is there a list or guidelines or set parameters as to what makes someone notable? (I'm fairly new to Wiki) Or is it simply at the discretion of the Wiki editors to decide for themselves if the person is notable or not? HighMerrits (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Learning the hard way[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an idiom dictionary. —Ryulong (琉竜) 03:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK. As noted above, this seems to be part of a bundle of nominations related to a geographical dispute and seem to have frivolous, irrelevant character contrary to WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT. Warden (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should really not copy-paste your arguments from other pages when they have no context here. I will admit I found this article and the others I nominated for deletion by going through a single author's contributions, but only after I discovered that he had created several other poorly formatted articles that violated core Wikipedia policies.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per previous comments, this appears to have nothing to do with dictionary definitions ("Wikipedia is not an idiom dictionary" is a reason for deletion??), but appears to be part of a pointy set of inappropriate AfD nominations. Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first AFD that was made. How could it be part of a "pointy set of inappropriate AfD nominations"? Tenmei authored a bunch of idiom definition articles. Bueller 007 and I put them at AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going with my comments on the other articles of this nature, it's more than just a dictionary definition. I say keep it.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What dead horse? This was the first nom of them all and it's really the poorest article out of them all.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The horse was metaphorical and concerning Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, and it would be easy to see a pattern here, and dismiss the request for deletion out of hand. WP:Duck. But we are not evaluating these wholesale, but indvidually. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The pattern was arguably formed after this point, so the horse was still alive when this started. It's only when people began going "keep bad faith nom" has the horse died.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should concentrate on 'fixing the problem [assuming there is one] and not fixing the blame.' Recriminations are not helpful. However, in the future, if the article should stand, maybe the dissenters need to reevaluate their respect of WP:Consensus. Trying to tilting at windmills and pitch these articles down the well and into the memory hole may not be the best course. But that is something I leave to the individual editors' conscience. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep Not the best article out of the bunch, but it is a useful psychological and analytical concept. Or it could be kept and merged with School of hard knocks. Deleting this is out of the question. It goes well beyond definitions, and is a useful concept that may be of interest to readers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps the nom is learning the hard way nominating articles for deletion without good reason in the cause of battling another editor is not going to work. Trouts to nom, expression is idiomatic, something we should properly cover, so DICDEF doesn't apply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau of Diplomatic Security KIA[edit]

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

WP:NOT MEMORIAL DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree this is essentially a memorial page. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 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 speedy keep. SK#1: nom proposes non-deletion action (merge)—merges can be discussed through the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers process and in any case AfD requires a deletion argument (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medicare dual eligible[edit]

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

~~Recommend merge. This article is basically about a specific part of Medicare and has no independent notability beyond that. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [29]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:46, 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Schweighart[edit]

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

Subject is small town mayor with no real notability outside the town's own newspaper coverage. The content in this article is scant and there is not likely to be any more. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [30]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Champaign, Indiana has a population of 81,000. That's a small city, not a small town, and for cities of that size, we have always considered the mayors to be notable DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick: It's Champaign, Illinois. eaolson (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From WP:POLOUTCOMES "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville"." The question could be answered by the size of the city - which would be about the 380th largest city in the United States. Census Fact Finder 2012 The metropolitan area, though, is a metropolitan statistical area, ranked 181st and Champaign is the major city in the area. The other question should be how the Mayor is elected - city wide or in a Council–manager government, the Mayor could be elected by their colleagues on the City Council. (In this case, the Mayor is elected city-wide, but this is a question that I like to know when evaluating an AfD for a Mayor). So, is the consensus one that is based on population size of the city, or whether it is the largest city in a metropolitan region (or division within a metropolitan region) (U.S. Census definitions) and how would that translate to other countries? Perhaps I am overthinking this too much, but I can see how 81,000 could be seen both as a small city or a large one. Enos733 (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Going to agree about this being passable because it is a sizable city and the article is an adequate start and needs not OR or digging to bring up relevant information. It needs work though. Like being hit with Reflinks, which I will do now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:15, 7 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 Republican National Committee. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Republican National Committee members[edit]

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

Recommend Merge with Republican National Committee. This information belongs on that page as relevant, and more importantly, it is difficult to maintain as these members change all the time. A spot check has shown a few RNC members on this list that haven't been members in over 4 years. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [31]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Merge I agree, this makes sense to merge. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not news and not a directory. Borock (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Republican National Committee per UnrepentantTaco. Per WP:NOTNEWS & WP:NOTDIRECTORY, does warrant standalone article.--JayJasper (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list is fine either as a stand-alone article or within the main RNC article. Deletion isn't the course as this is appropriate, encyclopedic material. To the nominator, AfD is the wrong venue to propose mergers, although this probably won't be ended early. Next time you wish to propose a merger use WP:PM or be bold and do it yourself if the subject isn't controversial. Them From Space 17:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do we really need an article on (to quote the article itself): "voting members of the Republican National Committee as of August, 2009"? An interested person can go to the RNC's (or the DNC's) own website and find a current list of members. WP is not a directory. Borock (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Should not be a standalone piece, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Merger to Republican National Committee would seem an appropriate context (and would be more apt to be properly maintained than a stand-alone piece). Carrite (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The full RNC piece has about 7,000 views in the past month, this member list just over 400. Far better chance that politicos will fix inaccuracies as a supplement to the main piece... Carrite (talk) 17:38, 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 speedy delete. On review, this ties into a hoax, so speedy-deleting as an extension of the walled garden/hoax Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avahura[edit]

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

Non-notable constructed language. Contested PROD. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Proft[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has existed in the current form more or less since the primary 4 years ago. He is a candidate that finished in last place in single digits in primary and doesn't seem to have had any noteworthy activity before or since. Merely running for office doesn't make one noteworthy and most of the current article is positions he took in primary and there doesn't appear to be much more notable material to add. Recommend delete or at least a merge to 2010 election page.C UnrepentantTaco (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [32]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He may run again for Governor in 2014 and there is significant coverage of this, for example here and here. The article does need to be tidied up a little but with the existing coverage, the recent material to add and other information about him from here, for example, he meets WP:POLITICIAN. As was noted the last time this article was nominated for deletion, simply coming last in a primary and not having many recent edits is not reason enough to delete an article. Tiller54 (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The net effect of this is promotional,and obviously intended to be so. DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think this might be a borderline WP:GNG pass.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs more independent coverage, but that could be found with minimal digging on Google News, much revolves around his commentary and talk show. Meets GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:19, 7 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 01:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hualapai Hilltop, Arizona[edit]

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

this stub is not notable - it's just a trailhead Larry (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - just a trailhead, as mentioned. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable, existence alone doesn't save it under Wikipedia's gazetteer status because it is a trailhead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:21, 7 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) 06:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamas–Philippines relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. no significant coverage, no resident embassies, no significant trade, no state visits. this article hinges off a single issue that the Bahamas government wants to restrict foreign workers affecting the 1000 Filipinos living there. 1000 is not a lot, considering that there are over 9 million Overseas Filipinos. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not these country relations articles again...epzik8 20:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Finnegas (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMHO bilateral relations are always intrinsically notable, and they can be almost always sourced reliably. Even the very fact that the relationship is factually trivial is an interesting information to the reader, while the absence of the article does not imply so: it just leaves the reader in the dark --Cyclopia ^talk 13:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just because something can be sourced does not mean automatic article. there's coverage of my local police station yet it doesn't get a WP article. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is coverage, it would pass WP:GNG, therefore it could get one. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not demonstrate notability, and there's no reason to think that there would be a notable level of contact between these two countries. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 5 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) 06:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gunther Burpus[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. As far as I can tell, the only coverage of this individual is 1) his dormant twitter account at https://twitter.com/GuntherBurpus ; and 2) mirrors of this Wikipedia article. There is also plenty of 3) coverage of the urban legend from which he apparently derived his name (e.g., http://www.snopes.com/embarrass/buff/burpus.asp ), but that's not about the individual who is the subject of the article.

No mainspace links into the article, and it remains a stub with substantially the same content for some five years now. TJRC (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see anything else to do with this article. Goes under WP:BASIC. It is not covered. Citrusbowler (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found with this name, that is not about the UL. Neither in German sources nor with the spelling variants Günther oder Guenther. Probably the author wrote the article based on hearsay. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The lone reference in the article is not about him, and I can find no coverage about him. In particular, the article claims that his best known piece of work is "Where would you go," but has garnered no notice in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 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 redirect to Mirror trading. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy trading[edit]

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

Copy trading is the same as Mirror trading, and there is no reason why there should be two articles at the moment, not to mention this article's unencyclopaedic language. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mirror trading. A Google Books search shows that mirror trading is the most common name for the topic. Though that article is unreferenced and needs work, it seems to be more neutrally written and encyclopedic than this one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the same as a mirror trade. It is a different entity and notable enough. History2007 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:22, 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, L Faraone 00:40, 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 delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMS India[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No secondary reliable source, only present here as an unencyclopedic promotional material Solomon7968 (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced spam. How did this even pass the first AfD? It's just promotional rubbish. No established notability or significant coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 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, L Faraone 00:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam for a Non notable cram school. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 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 move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Category tree. The consensus is clear this article should be moved to the Project namespace. Nominator agrees, and the delete and keep !voters also suggest that it should be placed into WikiProject Sociology. I see no point in letting this continue the full 7 days. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology category tree[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:SELFREF. If people want to move through the category structure, they can use categories... Izno (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If those aren't enough, it's basically a soft WP:XNR. --Izno (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adamc714 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capricious comments in AFD discussions without any rationale are dismissed without consideration. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Page has been re-categorized as a Project-class article. It is a useful page for working on Wikiproject Sociology.Meclee (talk) 15:02, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia namespace, under WikiProject Sociology somewhere, or merge to Outline of sociology. Agree with nom it's mostly useless and non-notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a need for an encyclopedia article on the topic. I've added a link to the tree under 'Categories' on the WikiProject Sociology project page. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm confused, because below the AfD tag it says not to nominate the page for deletion. Was that notice there before the article was nominated? epzik8 20:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right but that notice isn't policy based. You can't prevent an article from being discussed; that goes against all the founding principles. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any item on Wikipedia can be brought for discussion to a deletion venue. "Don't nominate for deletion" has no basis in policy, as Michaelzeng7 says. --Izno (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm confused, as well. It's already been re-categorized as a Project-class article. So, is there a precedent that any Project-class article can be called for deletion by anyone, even if they are not working on the Project? If it is Project class and useful to even one person working on the project, who cares? I don't work as often on WikiProject Sociology right now, but it is useful when I do and may be useful to others as well. The page takes almost no server space and only a bit of processing time when it is refreshed. I am curious as to why others are so bent on deletion. Meclee (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a direct quote from WP:PJ: "A WikiProject's pages are not used for writing encyclopedia articles directly, but as resources to help coordinate and organize the group's efforts at creating and improving articles. WikiProjects often write advice for editors, use bots to track what is happening at articles of interest to the group, and create lists of tools and templates their members commonly use." (emphasis added). Meclee (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I can see this page being moved to a subpage of the WikiProject, if indeed you believe it is useful for the project. As it is now, you've both a) used a category which is not meant for article space, and b) the article itself is not notable (largely because it is self referential). Would Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Category tree work for you? --Izno (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a sensible solution. Thank you! Meclee (talk) 00:45, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just Dance Wii 3[edit]

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

No sources,no proof that it's real and no confirmation by Ubisoft that this game is real. Possible that it could be later on but as of right now, not real. Wiiboy829 (talk) 22:27, 24 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) • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL; searching the game's title gives only this article and pages about Just Dance 3. Satellizer el Bridget ^ツ 11:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that this yet-to-be-released game satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NVG at this time. Gong show 21:40, 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 delete. Mkdw ^talk 19:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triumphant Institute of Management Education[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No secondary reliable source, only present here as an unencyclopedic promotional material Solomon7968 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once again, I have no idea how this passed the first AfD. There are no sources given and no significant coverage to be found; all I'm finding are links on commercial and social media sites. More promotional rubbish. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just saw the earlier AfD page, where one of the comments says that this is a coaching institute and hence doesnt merit an article. Wiki has a page for Princeton Review which is also a testprep company. This one is a popular company in India and definitely deserves a page. "Promotional Rubbish' which MezzoMezzo refers to above - is basic info about what the company does and the scale of it. It is similar to carrying info on revenues and no. of employees, operational locations etc. If wiki doesnt like to carry info like this, it should remove the pages of all 'companies' as a policy - and I know that doesnt make sense!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.44.250 (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tone used in the article is quite obviously promotional. Furthermore, for your statement of "If wiki doesnt like to carry info like this, it should remove the pages of all 'companies' as a policy", see WP:OTHERSTUFF. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I apreciate the endeavour for a thorough discussion, one liners and opinions seen to be ruling the roost. I looked at this page this way - when people search wiki for this company, it not being available there is not appropriate for the following reasons 1. It is one of the top test-prep companies in India. 2. Its opinions are frequently quoted by the India media on entrance exam related discussions. 3. The turn over is $40-50 million, cannot call it to be non-notable. If we have issues, with the page, we should work towards re-writing it but not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairama44 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, and even if it were, the article would need a fundamental re-writing to make it encyclopedic. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant advert. lacks quality third party sources. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Not a notable institute. The page is created for marketing purpose. Strongly recommend to delete this page.Jussychoulex (talk) 03:55, 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.