< 20 October	22 October >

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn (in the form of a db-author request) by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

((db-author|rationale=Someone had requested speedy by the time I was finished deciding to reques deletion. So rollback on deletion request for now.))

Zuccotti park, musical[edit]

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

Notability - all references are user generated. 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 23:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore - someone had already put CSD on article by the time I finished tagging for AfD!-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 23:14, 21 October 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 October 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. SmartSE (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Protectors (2014 TV series)[edit]

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

Page has no sources, and I couldnt find any information about it. Also, I suspect WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies. Benboy00 (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found no information about it at all; even if it is not a hoax, WP:NOTCRYSTAL would still apply. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another kid's show hoax from someone who knows what they're doing under a new account (not sure who, but they sure know how to edit too well for a newbie). Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above/nom. Hoax. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything at all with regards to the subject - if it isn't a hoax, then it is too soon. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 07:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 07:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:SNOWBALL? Benboy00 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find this program on any public search. --Nlfestival (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as hoax. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beguni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beguni

This article is practically abandoned, has had and been tagged as having no sources since August 2012, and is for all intents and purposes an abandoned stub with insufficient information to warrant it's inclusion as an article at this time. Cat-five t c ---- 22:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it not be better just adding sources, rather than deleting it. Having a look around the firmament, there is valid sources available. scope_creep talk 00:28 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Weak keep - A valid cuisine entry, albeit poor sourced. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per sources added to the article. A viable option is to rename the article Aubergine fritters and expand it to include more content about aubergine (eggplant) fritters, particularly since sources are available for this food in abundance. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as per Northamerica1000. The google search shows quite a few web citations. jmcw (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - That being said I found literally thousands of recipes, which do not confer notability unto them selves. But with that many recipes, there has to be more information about the subject. If valid, reliable sources cannot be located, I would suggest redirecting to Eggplant or fritters. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks good to me. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the merits. No question that there are sources sufficient to indicate some notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 WTA Upsets (tennis)[edit]

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

There are countless upsets every tennis season. To make a list of them all (which would need to happen every year if this stays) is very trivial. Just because upsets happen doesn't mean we need entire yearly articles on them. These can easily be taken care of in the player's own bio if it's important enough to merit inclusion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a list for every kind of event, only for the notable, not for all of them. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Article is both trivial and subjective.--Wolbo (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Per creator's request, subsequent content was userfied. (NAC closure by Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Sortable list of Attorneys-General of Australia[edit]

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

Article provides a sortable list of Attorney-Generals of Australia. This duplicates the exact information contain in the original list. Why not make the original article sortable? scope_creep talk 22:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'm a little confused by the reaction to the page, for a number of reasons (see following), but I see no point in wasting everybody's time, effort and energy, so I've moved it to my user space, and put a ((db-author)) on the redirect. i.e. This discussion is effectively closed - all it needs is someone to put the right ticks in the right boxes. My comments are:
- This duplicates the exact information ... - Pedantically technically, no it doesn't, but for all intents and purposes, for those not encumbered by the curse of pedantry, the assertion is "close enough".
- Why not make the original article sortable? - My personal POV is: To me, "That would seem like the sensible solution", but my reticence to have done that were due to my expectations of comments exactly like those of User:NinjaRobotPirate ... Hence, I felt that a non-contentious option was to produce a separate page. It seems I was wrong!!
- As for "User:Eduemoni's "Any relevant information should be incorporated into parent article.", I have no idea what that means and/or is supposed to mean.
- NinjaRobotPirate: May I bother you to suggest how I should go about seeking consensus for a sortable table? (Thanks in advance.)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pdfpdf, when it is said incorporate into parent article, means the article from which the content fork was generated, in this case Attorney-General for Australia, Regards. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a redundant content fork of the original article. It looks like someone tried to make the original table sortable, it got reverted, and then this article was created. Consensus for a sortable table should be sought at the original article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above and per nom. Any relevant information should be incorporated into parent article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 09:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SAMET[edit]

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

Article fails WP:Company. Sources link to Italian blog pages. Seems to be an old mid century manufacturer bought up and still existing, but entirely non-notable. Also article is created by block sockpuppet. scope_creep talk 21:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poor translation of the Italian page, seems to be used to push the same nonsense that the user tried to push on itwiki (see this revert). However, La Repubblica is not a blog but one of the foremost independent newspapers of Italy, so I'm not yet convinced of the lack of notability. (How can a blocked user create a page anyway?) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:A7 Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Online sources cited do not appear to cover this company in any detail, failing the significant-coverage requirement of WP:GNG. Article makes no assertion of notability, and size of company (per article, 450 employees) doesn't suggest a high degree of notability. Ammodramus (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marantz products[edit]

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

An online search indicates that the subject appears not to meet WP:LISTN, and any encyclopedic value isn't obvious. Merging would give undue weight. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Trevj (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. The article fails WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This article is functioning as a product catalog at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - This is presently a poor article, but "Marantz products" associated with Saul Marantz is a notable list topic, and those associated with Ken Ishiwata are probably notable. The article needs to describe the models by their engineering and construction, and distinguish (and name) those that were routine commercial products without notability.68.58.224.249 (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib International Airport[edit]

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

Article fails WP:FUTURE. Also sources are dubious, only single blog entry names the airport, all the rest are broken. No other news articles etc, which would/should be abundant in Bangladesh search engines. Also the author has been blocked and is a possible sockpuppet, hence an advertising page like this. scope_creep 20:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Article fails NPOV, and WP:NOT, Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.aycliffe ^talk 17:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this airport appears to have been proposed and cancelled several times for various reasons but nothing of substance appears to have taken place. The article could be recreated at a later date but for now Wikipedia, crystal ball and all that. Green Giant (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CMEA Capital. KTC (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Watson (venture capitalist)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ANYBIO - I've had a look and not found sufficient in-depth sources to sustain this article, which appears somewhat promotional. CSD declined in 2010, so potentially not a valid PROD candidate. I wish you all the best in your endeavours, Mr Watson. -- Trevj (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try redirecting to the parent company? Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No, I didn't try this. Page views seem relatively low, and I wonder how much of a valid search term the subject is. Content included at the parent company article about the subject would be very limited, and possibly undue. However, yes I admit that redirect could be a valid outcome here. -- Trevj (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly does not appear notable for an independent article anyway. Your point about search terms has validity. But it seems like it would have been a neat way to resolve the issue of dealing with this article subject (if it stuck). Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Croix Falls Cinema[edit]

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

It seams to me that this article does not fulfill the notability criteria of WP:ORG. The article is far too promotional. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a run-of-the-mill movie theater. There is no evidence of architectural or historical significance. It got a spate of social media attention for bad customer service a few years ago, but that incident doesn't make it notable, in my view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What coverage there is appears to be more about the customer dispute and resulting boycott. Delete unless someone uncovers substantial coverage in reliable independent sources covering the theater and its history apart from the dispute. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Average multiplex in average market with a splash of WP:COATRACK for the admittedly terrible email response; old management was responsible for that, not the new one, and since they're gone, life goes on for this theater. Nate • (chatter) 01:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though not solely a reason for being deleted the subject is not notable. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially reproducing information from the cinemas own website. Appears to be no more notable than most cinemas. Green Giant (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Gardner[edit]

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

Does not establish notability separate from The O.C.. Article is basically a recap of what happened to this character over the (seemingly few) episodes she appeared in. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The very definition of a character solely brought on for a limited-run plot device to stir things up for a bit. Not even notable enough for a redirect (I watched the show back then but this character made no impression on me whatsoever at the time). Nate • (chatter) 01:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg1234 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (WP:NAC) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berandal[edit]

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

Fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. Sources are exclusively blogs, gossip sheets and social media; no WP:RS found in Google search. May be suitable for userfication until it meets WP:MOVIE. Miniapolis 19:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just merge or at least redirect to the first movie? Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Jakarta Post (largest English-language newspaper in Indonesia) has at least two articles about it (1, 2), and the largest newspaper in Indonesia, Kompas, has several articles, including "Shooting of the Raid 2 Berandal Finishes" and "Sequel to The Raid Promises Many Surprises". Some WP:BEFORE, please? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, looking at the sources already in the article, my sense of professionalism is gravely insulted. Twitch might not be a well-known site, but it seems trusted for international films. The Hollywood Reporter is quite solid, as is The Jakarta Post. To have these two publications demoted to "gossip sheets" shows a complete lack of understanding of the industry and a lack of interest in finding out. Per WP:SPS, Tweets from the creators can be used to fill in information if it's not available anywhere else (though that doesn't count towards notability). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the Jakarta Post is a RS, both articles are pre-release buzz; I still think it's WP:TOOSOON for a separate article. A redirect to The Raid: Redemption would preserve this article's history, or you might be willing to userfy it until it meets WP:MOVIE. All the best, Miniapolis 15:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:MOVIE supports having an article on films before release if coverage is adequate, so long as principal photography has commenced (as it clearly has here). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets Wikipedia:Notability (films) and WP:GNG. Source examples include: [1], [2]. Also, here's a short article: [3]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus passing WP:NFILM. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clovis Whitfield. KTC (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whitfield Fine Art[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Gallery is not notable in its own right. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage in reliable, independent sources can be provided. I found plenty of passing mentions, but no in depth discussion of the gallery itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Clovis Whitfield, who (based on the large number of GNews hits) is probably notable--although the bio article is in need of sourcing (I note that several sources were removed without explanation in 2008). --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Doesn't appear to be notable independently of Clovis Whitfield. Private galleries tend not to get detailed independent coverage, except for mentions in articles about shows and profiles/bios/obituaries of curators/owners/founders. They are only likely to be notable if they are in buildings of architectural interest, very old businesses, significant tourist attractions, played a key role in a notable artistic movement/event, or are otherwise out of the ordinary. And I don't see any evidence for this being a special case. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. This is essentially a shop, as far as I can tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Clovis Whitfield. Despite claiming to have opened over 30 years ago and relocated in 2009 I can't find anything online to substantiate this. There may well be offline sources but WP:NCORP is a tough criteria to meet and I doubt somehow there will be many general news sources. The Clovis Whitfield article already claims credit for the exhibtions at the gallery! The coverage of the gallery that does exist seems to be down to the personal expertise and discoveries (and curation?) of its owner. Sionk (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy groups and clusters[edit]

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

This is an improperly conceived disambiguation page. A disambiguation page is a collection of things that share the same title, for example Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (god). Per WP:DABCONCEPT, we do not have disambiguation pages compounding arbitrary divisions of the same type of thing, for example, "Roads in Spain and Portugal" directing readers to Roads in Spain and Roads in Portugal, or "Butterflies and French emperors" directing readers to Butterfly and Emperor of France, because neither individual topic by itself is commonly known by the combined name. Similarly, neither title on this page contains the phrase Galaxy groups and clusters, and therefore neither title is ambiguous to that phrase. I therefore propose to delete this page and redirect the title to Large-scale structure of the cosmos#Walls, filaments, and voids. bd2412 T 18:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the proposal says, this isn't a valid article, any more than having an article called "cats and dogs" with links to "cat" and "dog" would be. I don't know where to redirect it, possibly Observable universe#Large-scale structure. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Observable universe#Large-scale structure is fine. Actually, that is what I had intended to link to; the target I suggested redirects to approximately that section. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If appropriate, add a ((distinguish)) hatnote on the articles. older ≠ wiser 11:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, Boleyn (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a valid disambig page. -- 101.119.14.73 (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Election Results, Dayton, Ohio, Municipal Court Judge[edit]

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

No notability outside of the local area. Wizardman 17:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - local ultra-trivia barely fit for a Dayton, Ohio wiki. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is out of date and hasn't been edited for years besides maintenance, leftover from when inclusion was a lot less strict. Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable, local-impact races. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:BLP, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:COAT, and WP:SNOW. At this point, it's just a pointy and cruel reminder to a human being who is, and a condition that is, already stigmatized. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Reidy[edit]

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

This is an article about a Congressional stenographer who was forcibly removed from the House floor after shouting some things into a microphone. This is as clear a case of WP:ONEEVENT as I have seen. The incident itself had no lasting significance and the individual is only notable for this one incident. Even in the broader context of the recent government shutdown, this incident is negligible. GabrielF (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this pointy article per WP:BLP1E and let this poor woman get psychiatric help in peace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear violation of not news and one event. It is also a coatrack article to push one point of view about the issues related to the US government and fiscal decisions. There are few Wikipedia policies it is in compliance with. It also reads more like an essay than an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Just a coatrack for someone's opinion of Congress and the shut down at the expense of someone troubled and in need of help and support. Stalwart111 21:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Snow delete Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response from original author of the article[edit]

I heartily object to the deletion of this article, and would like to respond to the arguments made in their turn. The main arguments for deletion are WP:ONEEVENT (one event) and WP:BLP1E (coatrack).

In response to WP:ONEEVENT, the admittedly single event connected to this individual was sufficient to generate hundreds of news reports in all the major news outlet. Several of those are cited in the article. There is little doubt that future historical accounts of the gov't shutdown will include reference to this one event. The event was of sufficient significance to be reported, and continue to be reported world wide.

In response to WP:BLP1E, if the editors find that there are leading statements or biased language in the article, then this is grounds for edits, not deletion. I encourage the editors to make such changes or suggest changes on the talk page. Almost every sentence of the article is supported by citation, which you are encouraged to reference.

Without a response from the deleters, I consider this to be a clear cut case of censorship motivated by some kind of bias. Example "let this poor woman get psychiatric help in peace" User:Cullen328. Are you suggesting that people who may need psychiatric help should never have wikipedia articles about them?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted.strauss (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no dissenting !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Hugo Linder[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:Notability. References all from "affiliated" type sources, not independent third-party publications. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I disagree with other editors' interpretation of WP:ACADEMIC and WP:PROF, but I trust their collective wisdom is correct. I hope we can actually see substantive improvement to the article though, since it is lacking in sufficient WP:independent sources that establish notability. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:ACADEMIC criteria #3. Article could definitely be improved, but he's notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't there still need to be reliable secondary sources discussing such developments, as opposed to affiliated self-published material? Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why would we judge this individual under the academic criteria, when it wouldn't be inaccurate to even describe him as such? He was a corporate executive, and he was a member and leader of certain professional associations, not "scholarly society or association." Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless of his career, he satisfies one of the criterion for notability, which are fairly explicit. The IEEE is even used as the canonical example. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our guidelines explicitly state we should keep articles on the IEEE fellows.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But he's not an academic. Shouldn't these criteria only apply if he was actually an academic? Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No..."academic" in this context is an idiom meaning anyone working in any techno-scientific capacity, including chemists, biologists, scientists, etc. who do not necessary hold a formal academic appointment. Your nomination may have been a mistake based on semantics. In any case, a founder of the National Academy is an obvious keep, as many here have already pointed-out. Would be good-form for you to withdraw this nomination. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Whether it is kept or merged to the parent subject, deletion doesn't seem an appropriate outcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was a founding member of the National Academy of Engineering, which is the United States national academy for engineers, and on a par with the National Academy of Sciences. Daderot (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep IEEE fellow, founding member of the National Academy of Engineering. Bad joke. --Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. One doesn't have to hold an academic position to be notable via WP:PROF. This particular criterion (#3) is one of the easiest parts of WP:PROF to justify by other Wikipedia policie, as these memberships and fellowships are explicit recognition of his accomplishments by third parties. That is to say, these people noted him, therefore he is obviously notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Nominator should withdraw nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Strand bikeway[edit]

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

The article is written like a travel guide (WP:NOTTRAVEL), and I'm wondering whether or not the article is notable. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it's currently rather advert-like, it's received significant coverage from reliable sources, thereby passing WP:GNG.[4][5][6][7] AfD is to brought up when an editor determines that a topic is non-notable, not if they're wondering if it is.--Oakshade (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: [8], [9], [10]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Western Cycle[edit]

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

It appears to be written like an advertisement and I think that it's not notable enough that it is: the third oldest bike shop in Canada, and the fifth oldest in North America. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I could not locate significant coverage per WP:CORP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 95 years old isn't that significant unless it has something special and I'm guessing maybe this one doesn't have anything special aside for the locals. I searched all of the Saskatchewan newspapers online and found nothing until the Leader-Post which was literally my last search, with several articles here. However, none of the articles talk about this company in depth therefore not very useful especially for an encyclopedia article. Google Books didn't provide anything useful but Google News did, providing a couple of news articles including for the 75th anniversary in 1986 (short little article). The current article reads more like an advertisement and doesn't provide anymore details like the founder or anything like that. According to the company's website, the Western Cycle & Motor Company is related but I can't find much either. I went ahead and did a News search for "Western Cycle & Motor Company" but found mostly old advertisements. A while back, I improved Hoss's Steak and Sea House which is not even as old as this one and it may be database bias but I don't think so. I can't find anything independent for the Pedal magazine aside from their company which isn't bad but it's not independent, in-depth or a snippet of the article. No prejudice towards a future article or userfying. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soil kite[edit]

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

Firstly, a Google search on the term got two hits of any relevance: this article and a site that had copied its content from WP. Nor is the phrase to be found in the OED. So, a non-notable neoligism. Secondly the article is ludicrous nonsense. A kite is a body held by a tether in a moving stream of fluid. The article describes anchors. Apart from a section that I cannot understand. TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely comprehensible article that strains the definitions of the terms it uses. But, more importantly, nothing like a reliable source appears to share this understanding. Sources given are do not support the premise, or are unreliable, or both. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kronik (slang)[edit]

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

No reliable sources for article, questionable notability Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect to Cannabis (drug) as if we allow this article it will open the floodgates to hundreds of articles on slang terms for cannabis♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect to Cannabis (drug). Urban Dictionary is not a credible source. yonnie (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. This does not seem to be an established term outside of self-published sources. Could also be merged into Marijuana. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are you proposing to merge it into a redirect, NinjaRobotPirate?♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Sorry, I meant Cannabis (drug). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no redirect - nothing notable here at all - Moxy (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dictionary definition of a slang term. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... -------> /// Carrite (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chronic is a slang term for cannabis, as Wiktionary notes. While that might be worth mentioning at Chronic (disambiguation) or Cannabis (drug), though, it is hardly seems to warrant a redirect from this non-standard spelling. Cnilep (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, Dr. Dre, who I defer to in matters of American slang usage, spells the word with ch rather than k. Cnilep (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. I've already added a brief mention at Chronic. I suggest a cheap redirect to Cannabis. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian, why are you suggesting redirecting this to the article on the biology of the cannabis plant and not to the article on cannabis as a drug?♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ponce De Leon Cup[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources for this topic. The only Google News[11] and Google Books[12] hits are for an unrelated former golf championship (or ripoffs of this Wikipedia article). Coverage appears to be limited to a few mentions on webpages affiliated with the teams and fan blogs; this isn't enough to establish notability. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating this unsourced subpage:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fundamentally non-notable friendly tournaments. Fenix down (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - articles do not appear to be notable. C 679 19:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is not a case of BLP1E, and there is no clear consensus behind the complete deletion of this article based on GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 09:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Bergstein[edit]

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

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

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

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

Declined PROD, original reasoning was "Subject exists, but does not appear to be particularly notable for his work.", I agree with the sentiment but the subject is an edge case so I'm bringing it here to at least gain consensus on if he passes GNG. tutterMouse (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Subject does not appear particularly notable for the content which is the subject of his article. I am able to find sources, but they are all dealing with a messy lawsuit the subject is involved with. This raises the specter of WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E about messy details about this particular suit (not sure which way the fan is pointing that the shit is hitting).Based on the content in the sources, I feel quite sure we would be regularly bumping up against WP:BLP possibly WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PSEUDO constantly. Here are a few of the sources I found discussing the suit. [13] [14] [15] [16] Gaijin42 (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep Per busterD way below with 3 RS. he meets GNG, but barely. Will have to keep vigilant to avoid the gossip rags from being used and bring in WP:BLP violations Gaijin42 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete The lead tries to establish notability by association. The lack of sourcing for the subjects production career is telling.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article was brought to the attention of AN and BLPN by an IP linked to the lawsuit - in other words, a party to the lawsuit has asked us to delete this article. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly that IP may have nefarious motives. But if the subject does not meet our BLP and GNG policies then that is the end of the line. We don't ignore our policy just because the person who pointed it out may have non-wiki-motivations. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we do ignore the consequences of doing things that enable, encourage and reward people who exploit Wikipedia for their own purposes. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And we have another new editor, this time with an account, who has made 3 edits in article space - all deleting material from this article, and one at WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. His business affairs and litigation have been ongoing and in the news for at least 5 years, which transcends any rules about him being notable for a single event: a lot of coverage is from 2013[17][18][19][20], but there's coverage on 2011 legal woes[21], a 2010 Daily Beast article[22], 2008 troubles[23][24], and info from Bloomberg[25]. This article has been hacked about a lot, but it was longer and more informative and could be restored. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I have just started editing and this is the first subject I have started working on, so I am working real hard to earn respect and do the right thing, after researching David Bergstein for last 3 hours on every public forum, I only come up with law suits and negative press, there is not a single independent article that shows how David Bergstein has done the facts his article claimed, for instance the article claimed he is a experienced Investment banker with over 3b in deals, there is no public source that can validate that claim, it looks like a PR firm has been hired to clean up the image and a positive article with self-proclaiming facts is the only positive article in the public space. Wiki has not become a platform for advertisement, this article should be deleted immediately, I say this after a very through research. Even the movies claimed in the list, when you click on those movies Wiki have negative news associated to David Bergstein for example click on the film “Nailed” in his list and follow the news reference under “Nailed” --Nlfestival (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG very easily. WP:BLP1E does not apply, as the coverage is reasonably spread out. 2010 article 2011 article 2012 article. Deleting this would remove encyclopedic information that is covered by sources. He belongs here, plain and simple. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody remind me why the Hollywood Reporter is a good source to use on BLPs? I thought it was at the level of The Sun or the Daily Mirror. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Most of the claims made in the wiki article are unsubstantiated and can not be verified through any public source.Wiki article is the only positive article on him and hence like his advertisement platform. Gregg1234 (talk)

So we fix it. If Joseph Smith's article read "Joseph Smith was known as an entertainer, and was one of the best selling rapper-turned-politicians of all time" we wouldn't delete it because there were no sources for that sentence. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree with Nlfestival. This guy is a nobody and the investment banking claims are not only false, but completely random and unsupported by any facts whatsoever. His press always seems to be negative when you conduct real research. We want to preserve Wikipedia's reputation for legitimacy and credibility, which means deleting this article. Remember: it's not about the quantity of articles, it's the quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmag20 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The single purpose accounts - look at them all. Anyway, your sources don't have to portray the subject in a positive light for the subject to warrant a Wikipedia article. If that was the case, no criminals would ever warrant a page. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not seeing the point. Regardless of the light, the article is INACCURATE. I would be fine with this if it was backed by anything, but it is completely unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmag20 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we fix it. Articles are not deleted because of their current flaws. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only external references cited are IMDB which is a self-created profile and hence not a credible source for information or facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg1234 (talk • contribs)

You, my friend, have already voted. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have !voted delete, the socking is quite obvious here, and I am tempted to reverse my vote purely because I hating people WP:GAMEing the system. Such action would be completely non-prejudicial to an immediate renomination on the merits (or lack of) imo though. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I challenged the PROD. I have no opinion about notability, I just wanted this one studied and handled here rather than shunted off to PROD since there was significant non-standard pressure being exerted for deletion at AN/I. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree the recent information we can reasonably gather on the BLP subject is mostly negative, we don't normally shy away from article subjects merely because they appear to have managed money poorly. In fact, the subject's apparent (but repeated and reliably sourced) fiscal failures have drawn press far surpassing the WP:GNG bar. While IMDB can't be regarded as an RS, it does reproduce several Hollywood Reporter articles which confirm the subject has producer or executive producer credits on several major projects, including a Lumet-directed film and a Mamet-directed film. Hollywood Reporter also documents Bergstein's involvement with purchases of Franchise Pictures, ThinkFilm, Capitol Film and Intermedia's U.K. divisions. The Bloomberg profile linked above is neutral and meets IRS. The RS Daily Beast article linked above is entirely about the subject and his business activities. This work needs expansion, sourcing and normal editing, in order to PREVENT the page from being a coatrack. But deleting the page merely because found sources don't have much good to say about him doesn't serve the pedia or the subject. Finally, like User:Gaijin42, I'm concerned about this IP and SPA push to delete the page, though this didn't figure into my weighing WP:V and WP:GNG. BusterD (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Bergstein has certainly been around the block a few times and he certainly receives coverage in news sources, but most of them seem to be at the "gossip" / "Hollywood chit-chat" end - there's nothing substantial in high quality broadsheet style sources, which a BLP really needs. The best I can find is This LA Times blog, and the Reuters and book source that Colapeninsula found. That's just about enough to clear the barrier. (Oh, and I've just GA reviewed Jeffrey Dahmer so don't talk to me about "you can't have an article if it's all negative"...) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - I agree with Ritchie333, if JD could have a wiki page then negative personalities should not be a reason to delete the page, the debate is moving in the right direction and thank you Ritchie333 for making that clearer with your comments and I think last few comment s from Taylor Trescott also said “lets fix it”. My assessment was the way the initial profile was written was in stark contrast to what is publicly available on this person; this would be if someone made a new JD profile and absolutely did not mention anything about his negative side, but wrote facts that cannot be substantiated and very showing him as a very successful positive personality. We have to be very careful of paid PR profiles being created for the sole purpose of image fixing and since wiki gets a higher hit on any search engine, a inaccurate profile can be very misleading. I do not believe in writing negative on anyone, hence my recommendation in its current form is delete as it is not accurate depiction of this person by any means. Ritchie333 lot of respect to you for all the work on wiki, love you humor section and special comment on “lol” my feeling is mutual. --Nlfestival (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - Further to my previous comment, I strongly disagree with -Colapeninsula and Taylor Trescott that this subject article on David Bergstein passes or meets WP:GNG, far from truth, or I am missing something, here is the definition from WP:GNG “Notability requires verifiable evidence” the article claimed facts that cannot be verified, they contained facts that are in stark contrast with what can be verified, hence the article does not meet or pass WP:GNG, my recommendation is deletion of the article or further yet my strong recommendation is with Ritchie333 to portray the right image from what we can verify in the public domain with good sources, even the book source that Colapeninsula found ( only one passing reference on a failure of David Bergstein) is also negative. So if we keep this article someone has to do the justice of portraying the right profile of this living person, and like I said I do not like to write negative about anyone, and moreover there is nothing interesting here other than “a person running a Ponzi scheme and taking businesses bankrupt leading to 100’s of law suits with dirty media fights”, that’s what the article would look like, my recommendation deletion. --Nlfestival (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The current state of the article really has no bearing on the notability of the subject. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The current state of the article is based on IMDB info which is paid advertisement and hence this page needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg1234 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - I have 20 years' experience in the film business but am a first time user to Wikipedia, so forgive me if I am not following protocol (and please correct me). I will certainly try to avoid unsupported statements. In my experience, the film industry is built on past "credits", which in turn leads to a competition for these attributes that is easily gamed, perverted or otherwise manipulated. In the corporate world, I like this to "title inflation" ("Chief Revenue Officer" or "Senior Executive Vice President"), but in the movie world, what I observe is more of a fist fight to amass credits, deserved or not. Bear in mind whoever brings together the funds can grab a credit for themself and call themselves King of Filmdom if they like. As I understand the Wiki mission, it is not to take sides, but to allow a balanced presentation from multiple sources and thus there is an added jeopardy to adopting film world references and claims without a reasonable level of diligence or support. In the case of DB, there appears to be zero objective support for the commercial and film-oriented successes claimed and ample evidence of misdirecton. For instance, the reference to "working with directors such as.....Taylor Hackford" is misleading. The single collaboration in that case was "Love Ranch", a film about the first legalized brothel in Nevada. The film ran out of funds under DB's direction and had to be completed with emergency funds with its lender. The foreclosure documents laying this out are now public record. The description cited made it sound as if Taylor Hackford would throw his arms around DB, but clearly that's not the case. To give a broader example, it is undisputed that all five of DB's film companies were placed into involuntary bankruptcy in March of 2010 by a group of over 20 creditors, including all three major Hollywood talent guilds (all of whom are still owed money). At a minimum, Wiki should not give the impression that Bergstein is an active and/or celebrated figure. The bankruptcy cases are still pending, but that kind of litigation can drag on for years. It is undisputed that ALL of his film companies were dragged into that bankruptcy nearly four years ago and have yet to emerge. The judicial record shows when the orders for relief were entered against each of the companies - ie these are not pending, they are live bankrutpcies, yet to reorganize or otherwise resolve. Over 300 proofs of claim were filed ie 300 separate sworn statements of those claiming to be owed money by the bankrupt entities. It can't be consistent with the Wiki mission to allow the principal of these companies to sweep those facts under the rug. It may well be that the cases are so complex that devoting any space to it would require such an involved discussion, that the better path is not to give this attention because doing so too easily plays into the "soapbox" strategy or, to use the word I saw others use (and which I like better) - "coat rack". RedFeltPen (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you said is unsupported. What is your connection to the Bergstein case and what led you to create an account and make this edit on this obscure and impossible-to-find-for-any-new-user page ? Is there anything you can do to prevent people connected to the dispute coming here ? Exploiting Wikipedia, a charity, as part of a real world dispute can have real world consequences for the people who do it. The media loves stuff like this. Reputations of individuals and companies can be damaged, their business ethics can be questioned etc, so it's a spectacularly bad idea for people to bring off-wiki disputes here. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Vasili Blokhin, Robert Bales, Peter Sutcliffe, Mark David Chapman and Timothy McVeigh. Not one of those is best known for anything that a reasonable human being would like to be known for, but they all have articles. "I don't like him!!!!" is not a valid reason to delete. If multiple, independent reliable sources repeatedly show over several years that Bergstein is "problematic", he may still have an article on that anyway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with Ritchie333, David Bergstein with his past and present should be either not allowed partially or should be portrayed in true light and not misleading the reader. For example would a profile of Timothy McVeigh be allowed if it only referenced a self-created profile on IMDB and Variety and said Timothy McVeigh was named Starpoint Central High School's "most promising computer programmer and is a successful businessman and entrepreneur in computer science. That would be highly misleading and the public evidence exists that points to any profile of Timothy McVeigh cannot do justice to the reader if presented without his last crime being mentioned, otherwise the readers will be misled with partial information. My recommendation is delete in current form, or a complete rewrite of the article with all the bankruptcies, complaints and ponzi schemes with public references available in form of new articles and court papers. To me, just reading some of the news articles on David Bergstein gave me an impression that the facts are very complex to understand and write. --Nlfestival (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I 100% agree with Ritchie333" .... "my recommendation is delete" ... except I've voted keep. Nlfestival, although you've said you want to delete this, I think what you really mean is "blow it up and start over" which is a "Keep" vote. "Delete" in the context of AfD means "there should not be any article on this subject in any state, positive or negative, ever". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Subject does not appear particularly notable for the content which is the subject of his article. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. --Olibb19 (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)— Olibb19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete IMDB and Hollywood reporter are not reliable sources. None of the movies on his page give him credit. Someone posted Bloomberg link which led to directory listing which is easy for anyone to get listed there. Joe R (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC) — Joer jamaica (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hollywood Reporter is used in many FAs so it probably is reliable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Reporter can certainly be considered a reliable source for movie credits. It's a professional journal covering the movie business. L.A. Times (not a blog), Daily Beast, and Reuters put this subject well past the GNG bar. The subject is verifiable, notable for major involvement with major projects, and covered by a wide range of reliable sources which are diverse, independent of the subject, and have been covering the subject since 2004. BusterD (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Bergstein has self-claimed his number one skills is deal making and claims 30 years of work in investment banking through his company called Cyrano Group, and we all can look into the public domain and say he is not a notable or even remotely recognized personality in deal making neither is the firm where he is a partner at this point Cyrano Group, so he does not establish himself as a notable personality and he should not be on Wiki for in Investment banking or Deal making, the other thing David Bergstein has done in his life is make movies, He is associated with as many movies as many law suits and press is out there who are claiming he misappropriated funds in a Ponzi scheme with film making as a front, He is not a notable personality in film making, in fact no one probably wants to be in or finance any films that he would put his name on, what he did in last 6 years under the names of films is now clearly in the public domain, whether he is the real culprit or not let a judge decide that but he does not establish himself cleanly in the film world, final conclusion David Bergstein does not appear to be particularly notable for his work or particularly notable for the content which is the subject of his article, Does not meet WP:GNG in any of the areas., which is why my initial vote was delete

The existence of a Scribd account called nlfestival that has published several documents related to the dispute with Bergstein, including a transcription of a taped conversation, indicates that you have almost certainly been less than forthcoming about your connection to this subject and any potential conflict of interest. Please stop commenting until you are in full compliance with WP:COI. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTIf you Google David Bergstein, the only positive article that does not talk about the Ponzi schemes and the litigations with the debtors but instead shows him in positive light is Wikipedia, I am baffled with Sean Holy land, instead of being able to show why his article should either be deleted or fixed to include this complete image he has a problem with me, read all my comments, I have been very objective in my comments, I do not judge people by first time or second time, similarly it is a well-known fact that a lot of wiki editors take money to promote people on the site, when you Google David Bergstein, the results make Wikipedia look like a bought up advertisement site which is showing a false picture of David Bergstein. This would be like Jeffrey Dahmer hired Sean Holyand and he made the profile Jeffrey Dahmer was a great cook. That’s it and then Sean fights illogically to keep that profile and cannot even admit if he wants to keep the profile he should add all the killings Jeffrey Dahmer did. Yes I uploaded a lot of documents on Sribd, they are all public documents from court filings, I have nothing to do with David Bergstein, but have a lot to do with wiki site being used to promote falsely a scam artist like David Bergstein, if you Google David Bergstein and go as far back as you want all the way to when he filed his personal bankruptcy in 1980’s only negative news exists about him, why is wiki the only public space which has no mention of all the court cases, no mentions of all the people he has defrauded, and mentions him as a successful entrepreneur. Does My Sean have an answer to that, I am sure all that have not been objective here one way or another the story will come out how David Bergstein has desperately hired PR firms and who then have seasoned wiki editors on payroll to make Wikipedia a platform to make David Bergstein look positive. The only one that has objectively commented so far is Ritchie333, I have commented before I am in favor of keeping his profile if we are ready to blow this page up and write a proper profile collecting all the publicly available articles. Anyone that is commenting this article should stay “as is” is not objective here, just Google this person. --Nlfestival (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you uploaded documents related to the case to Scribd on 21 September using your nlfestival account, the same day that you created this account, then did nothing until 19 October and haven't done anything with the documents. And your statement is "I have nothing to do with David Bergstein, but have a lot to do with wiki site being used to promote falsely a <BLP violation>". Righty dokey skip. All public documents from court filings you say. Which site did they come from ? My position is probably more easily understood if you consider that it is in fact entirely possible to not care in the slightest about Bergstein or any real world disputes involving him, but rather to care about things like the exploitation of a Wikipedia, a charity, to wage real world disputes and people not complying with WP:COI. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Nofe to all the new editors Documents stores on Scribd, etc are not acceptable as sources, we only use official links. In any case, WP:PRIMARY covers things such as court filings. There are very few occasions when we would use court filings, if any, in an article, and certainly not a BLP. If a court filing hasn't had some significant discussion in the media, etc, then it is unlikely to be relevant, if it has we use the media sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete to get rid of all the BLP violations in the history of this page. It seems that it might be possible to create a viable article about this minor cog in the Hollywood scene, but actual reliable sources about the behind the scenes roles he participates in seem scarce - a fresh start would be required and closely watched during development. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like more a case for keep and revdel, not delete. And unless the entire article is a BLP violation (and if it was, it could be speedy deleted as an attack page), deleting and starting over could be a copyvio unless you really are planning to start all over again with no reference to anything prior. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only purpose of this non-notable article is to attract disgruntled employees Shii (tock) 02:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we have some sour apples surrounding the article shouldn't be a reason to delete. I doubt he is non-notable due to the extensive source coverage. I'll have a go at expanding this article tomorrow. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Lambkin[edit]

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

Despite its having been here for eight years, nobody has managed to add any evidence of noatbility. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, really no significant coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Award winning author. Strange nomination. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AUTHOR #3 "multiple book reviews" Publishers Weekly, Chicago Tribune, World Literature Today, Kirkus. Complicated by the age of the books (1990s) but with this many reviews still online, and with the awards and recognitions, I'm sure there are more offline in particular South African sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:AUTHOR, criteria #3, "...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Sources: [26], [27], [28]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Having 4 novels published, some by Penguin, certainly implies notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VX (team combat sport)[edit]

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

Notability claimed does not seem to be supported. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage. Local paper coverage of a school festival and what is essentially a press release don't show me notability. I also don't think throwing tennis balls at each other is a "combat sport", so if the article is kept it might need to be renamed and reclassified.Mdtemp (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'The whole article reeks of hyperbole' Unless those claims are supported one almost has to assume its all wishful thinking.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to independently verify any claims of notability. When I looked at the U.S. organization, I found a web page and a Facebook account--neither of which had any contact information (phone, address, or email). The links were always back to the original organizational page. This looks like a lot of puffery and perhaps falls under "things made up one day". Papaursa (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only argument to keep this article has been that it's a useful way to find these gateways... as that is not a policy or site consensus backed argument it is irrelevant. I'm sure a list of phone numbers of businesses would be useful in some way as well, but Wikipedia is not a directory. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 10:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of SMS gateways[edit]

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

Spam magnet. Not an article, just a data dump and mostly inaccurate information. Nothing properly sourced. This proposed for deletion 4 years ago, with no consensus reached. akaDruid (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a straight-forward "Wikipedia is not a directory" matter. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's useful information, but it's not encyclopedic content: it's ephemeral and is indeed a directory. None of the gateways are notable though some are/were run by notable companies as a minor part of their business. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page contains useful reference information that does not seem to be available elsewhere. If it does not currently meet Wikipedia scrutiny, I'd suggest upgrading it rather than deleting it. I disagree with the notion that it contains "mostly inaccurate information". The info here is mostly up to date and is almost entirely useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBrydon (talk • contribs) 14:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)HBrydon (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Suprised to see this nominated after using this article this afternoon. I was searching for the 'EE.co.uk' sms gateway domain address this afternoon on both the EE and Oranges site, and couldn't find it. Eventually found the article, after a G search. So it's encyclopedic and clearly useful. scope_creep talk 17:54 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. - MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So it's directory, let's delete it, job done? What about the value of the information itself. It is reference information and encyclopedic. It is extremely hard to come by such a list. It would take many days work to sift through company websites, forums etc to compile the list. So it does have intrinsic value. There is no single site on the web that contains a list of this type. scope_creep talk 13:34 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The phone book has intrinsic value and takes a lot of effort to compile, but we don't use Wikipedia to host it. The text is CC by SA licensed, I suggest you upload it on some project where directories are in scope. - MrOllie (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? What makes something like this a directory, while something like list of web browsers is not? One could say that a directory is something about which I am only really interested in a single entry any time I come to visit it. But in the case of the list of sms gateways, I'm really interested in any that meet a particular list of criteria (e.g. free, don't require an account, work for a particular destination); this is actually not so different from what I'm after when I look at list of web browsers and comparison of web browser engines, where I'm looking for any potential browsers that meet my criteria (e.g. free, doesn't require an account, runs on my platform, supports https...). Is it simply a directory because phone numbers/web addresses are involved? But then what about other pages (most of them for web browsers, for example) that list a home page for the browser? Of course, the home pages for the browsers aren't included on the list page, but arguably that would be a more useful (but harder to maintain) page if they were. One could argue that it's a directory because the primary pieces of information about a given SMS gateway that are interesting are contained entirely in the list (e.g. the carrier and email address) so that it doesn't make sense to have independent pages for each gateway, and so it's less a compilation of links to other similar wikipedia pages and more a compilation of contact information. In that case, perhaps an appropriate alternative would be to convert this to a "list of entities known to provide sms gateways", and then link to individual sites (e.g. for the cellular carrier or for an external service), and add the sms-gateway info to the page for each carrier. Seems like that strikes a nice balance between keeping useful information available and keeping wikipedia well organized. 75.80.182.162 (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every time you edit Wikipedia, the words "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" appear above the box. It's pretty much the first rule of Wikipedia. Nothing on this page has been verified. If anyone can find any reliably sourced information then it belongs into the main SMS Gateway article anyway. akaDruid (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 09:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwant Anmol[edit]

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

Fails generally notability guidelines. Hardly any independent hits on Google search, the article itself lacks any reliable reference. Plus a promotional tone. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 11:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well intentioned perhaps, but still an autobiography that seems to fail WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. I was unable to source the claim about the work being ...the best selling Hindi novel of 2012. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quite possibly speedily. I have worked a bit on the article to prune some of the promotional language, and have also looked for secondary sources without finding anything. --bonadea contributions talk 11:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

save page , this is important page for hindi literature readers. I don't think this sholud be deleted. I don't want to delete it. please suggest us to save this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishukla1992 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC) — Ashishukla1992 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't delete I have worked in this article and i have also read Bhagwant Anmol. He should not be deleted. This is good information. this article should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prateek8 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)— Prateek8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Most authors pass notability on AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews in reliable sources. Has anyone reviewed these books in newspapers or magazines? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete I have added articles in newspapers and one review of The perfect love by sudheer maurya. If you want multiple reviews, then give me time for one to two months. I will share hundreds of reviews about his book, because his second book is releasing this month. Otherwise your choice (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishukla1992 (talk • contribs)

Sudheer review is a personal blog, needs to be published in newspaper or magazine with editorial oversight (newspaper blog OK), see WP:RS. I hope it gets 100s of reviews but maybe for now copy and save the article to your homepage and when new sources are available recreate it with the updated information but be sure the sources are reliable from places like The Hindu, etc.. or these 102 places (click "show index"), otherwise it will just be deleted again. About 3 reviews would probably be enough for me to vote Keep, depending on the length of the review and size of newspaper. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wales Coast Path. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 10:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carmarthenshire Coast Path[edit]

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

Doesn't exist. This is a content fork from Wales Coast Path by the newly created Living Paths! project. Though there were a number of established and well-trodden named coastal walks around the coast of Wales before 2012 (e.g. Millennium Coastal Path and Pembrokeshire Coastal Path ), there was not a Carmarthenshire Coast Path. The 'Living Paths' project provides not a scrap of evidence for its existence, the current sources refer to the Wales Coast Path. Admittedly the official website for the Wales Coast Path divides its guide (and maps) into local authority administrative areas, but this is not proof of a distinct, named coastal walk. Lengthy discussion about these issues can be seen at Talk:Wales Coast Path.

An AfD for the "Gower and Swansea Bay Coast Path" and "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path" has already been launched; unfortunately "Carmarthenshire Coast Path" wasn't included at the time and it may have complicated things to add it retrospectively! Sionk (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Wales Coast Path in Carmarthenshire. It seems to me that the path exists, but not under that name.
Delete or Redirect. I'm not seeing the justification for a standalone article based on sources. There should be a well developed article for the whole path with a sub-section for each path-section -- if/when those sub-sections get too long break off to a standalone article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wales Coast Path. I agree with Green Cardamom on the approach to take here since the parent article is quite short and this and the others seem to be essentially parts of the whole, but that is essentially an editing matter. I see no grounds for not keeping the information. Happily, a merge would largely obviate the rather fruitless arguments over naming! --AJHingston (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and start a separate merge discussion. In truth, I find it hard to argue that as a standalone page it presently meets WP:GNG but equally it contains useful information and I don't see how deletion benefits the Project. Wales Coast Path is unequivocally notable and there is an argument to merge the eight daughter pages into that main page. However, it is very much an editorial decision how the information should be best organised hence the need for an overarching merge discussion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear notability has been established. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 10:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Grant[edit]

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

This material is recreated from that deleted via an expired PROD. Reason then was "Fails WP:NSPORT/Motor (has not raced in a fully professional racing series). Also BLP without 3rd party references." It appears unchanged (from inspecting the various mirror sources a Google search brings up). Sent to AfD for full consensus. My opinion is to delete. Fiddle Faddle 10:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Fiddle Faddle 10:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page appears to have been speedy-deleted for reasons of notability, primarily due to deleter opinion on the notability of the race series, rather than on the individual so referenced. The page has been up since mid-2000; it seems odd that it would be trimmed now. Granted, it could use some improvement. Particularly, the person referenced has a few other accomplishments that could be added, and more work could go in to providing citations and external references (which do exist). It needs cleanup / refinement, not deletion. Page was restored to its previous content with a view to acting as a start point for future improvement. NorthStarZero (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page was deleted via the PROD process with the rationale above. At the time no-one associated with the article cared enough either to ensure that the article passed WP:GNG or to contest the PROD. Please do not cast aspersions on the integrity of the admin who deleted the article, it will not win you any points in this discussion. If you can ensure that the article is about a notable person whose notability is proven and verified in reliable sources, now is the time to do so in the article itself. That approach is guaranteed to ensure that it is retained. It is article quality and notability that is important here; no other argument works. Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation for deletion was pretty clearly stated by the comments left be the deleteee. In addition, the deletion happened in a fairly short timeframe and not everyone who might have cared had the opportunity to comment before it was gone. Notwithstanding, it was noticed and has been restored. The comment about improving the article itself to increase its standard (and by so doing, protect against future attempts at deletion) is well founded though - what is the timeframe in which this can take place? NorthStarZero (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reply Reading this will clue you in to the deletion process. Fiddle Faddle 21:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reasons for when the article was originally prodded still stand. The racing that the subject has participated in is fairly low-level amateur racing. The entire form of motorsport known as American Autocross which the subject competes in, while one of the largest forms of motorsport from a participant perspective, is pretty much entirely amateur and the while the subject's accomplishments are somewhat significant in the field, they are in no way exceptional as hundreds of autocross drivers have similar accomplishments. American autocross, as a whole, is not even covered by any sort of general media (or even general motorsports media). Finally, the article is still a BLP with no 3rd party references. -Drdisque (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ The race series that the individual's major accomplishments occurred in is a low-level professional series administered by the same race series that sanctions Trans-Am and American professional rally racing. It pays money, is a series in which performance at races all across the country is used to accrue points leading toward a championship, and has major series sponsors (at the time of the achievement, Honda). Granted, as pro series go, near the very bottom of the totem pole. But notwithstanding, a Pro series. Autocross itself, as admitted, it one of the largest forms of motorsport (by participation) in North America and a notable achievement in this category is thus, by definition, noteable. The fact that other drivers have similar (but not exactly identical) accomplishments is more a comment on the incompleteness of the subject matter and a potential source of improvement for the category as a whole rather than an indictment against the individual in question. Should there be pages for Mark Daddio, Bob Tunnell, Joe Cheng etc? as well? Absolutely. There are pages for Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and Joe Dimaggio for baseball; there's no reason who those who have achieved successes in autocross (and especially ProSolo, being the pinnacle) should not be similarly documented. With regard to the comment about media coverage, there is a link on the subject's team website to a YouTube video of an interview he conducted with SpeedTV - so while ProSolo may be under-reported in the media compared to other forms of racing, the claim that it gets no coverage is demonstratively false. NorthStarZero (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struck out the 'keep'. You are entitled to one statement to keep something, though you may make many comments. While this may seem like a ballot,it is a discussion instead. The outcome will be based upon the article, weighed against opinions all editors choose to offer.. Fiddle Faddle 21:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prosolo series doesn't appear to be considered professional even by the SCCA, otherwise he couldn't compete in the "Pro" finals and then in the national amateur championships a few days later. A search of the SCCA website turned up no hits on his name. According to the Far North team's website, Grant was the only "neophyte" in his class the year he won Rookie honors and then he finished 33rd of 48 at the amateur championships. For a "pro" series there's more records and discussion of trophies than prize money. Article also appears to have COI problems.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Champions or notable winners of far less known (less notable) sports activities appear on Wikipedia and rightly so. -The Gnome (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the subject is not the overall national champion, there is none, he won a class, of which there are about 50, once. -Drdisque (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Jimfbleak, NAC. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 12:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KJ Olison[edit]

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

A substantial set of apparent references lead solely to comics that the subject of this article has self published on Amazon (etc) thus are for sale. The article is borderline CSD as an advert. Because it is borderline I am bringing it here for full consensus. This will also give the creating editor and others some time to develop the article in case notability can be established. I see the subject as failing WP:GNG and the article as an advertisement. Fiddle Faddle 08:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian footballers who have played for foreign clubs. postdlf (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian footballers to have played in foreign clubs[edit]

Unnotable list with poor reference.These type of articles were created previously and also deleted like List of Indian footballers to have played in European Clubs.RRD13 (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is notable as it features players who have played for the Indian national team. Moreover, almost one players have their articles created in Wikipedia. All players have made their debut in the I-league. This page mentions such players as notable. Therefore, they are notable. And I have provided references. Moreover, No article can be deleted due to no citations. Please see here. TheProudEditor (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in foreign clubs is not something officially recognized stuff.Scoring a hat-trick is officially recognized (therefore notable) and so we have the article List of Premier League hat-tricks.RRD13 (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ But, in the article Mohammed Salim (footballer), it is mentioned that he was the first person to play in a European club. Therefore, as per your statement, this line should removed very fast. We also have Category:Indian expatriate footballers TheProudEditor (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can only !vote once. JMHamo (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT, no indication that Indian players playing for foreign clubs has received any significant reliable coverage as an overall topic (as opposed to individual players moving). Fenix down (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am pretty sure a version of this article has been deleted before, and I am also pretty sure these type of articles have been deleted before. It is pure LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 08:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like WP:LISTCRUFT and should be removed. JMHamo (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, potential merges should be discussed on the relevant article talk pages. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer 1[edit]

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

Redundant to Internet Explorer#Internet Explorer 1; only it has a bulky infobox too. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This can just be redirected. There was a failed proposal to merge the articles (Talk:Internet_Explorer/Archive 5#Proposed Merge), but there's been no improvement in three years so maybe it's unnecessary duplication. Peter James (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or keep separate if the coverage in the IE article is reduced. Peter James (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is internet history your trying to delete. Almost all the early work for the internet, and the subsequent versions, up to Version 6, was created and viewed on this explorer. scope_creep talk 00:05 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The history of internet that you are worried about is here. What we are trying to delete is an unauthorized copy. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Internet Explorer. This is an unnecessary fork of the main article. It seems to serve mostly as a version history, in opposition to WP:CHANGELOG. Deletion is also acceptable, as it seems redundant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet Explorer Version was only marketed for mere months, really a footnote in the browser's history the main article covers just fine. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Source searches indicate that this article can be significantly expanded. The Internet Explorer article is already at 110 kilobytes and per WP:SIZERULE, articles over 100 kb "almost certainly should be divided". Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Keeping or deleting this article has no impact on IE article. In both case, zero bytes are added or deleted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's being suggested is a reduction in the amount in the main Internet Explorer article, because of its length. Peter James (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the place of this suggestion is wrong. Internet Explorer article has a lot of potentials for a split; suggesting one that disrupts summary style is too unwise to be even considered. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, source searches indicate that this article can be significantly expanded. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "Can be" and "is" are two different things. But consider this: It can be recreated when someone intends to expand. For the time being, reducing redundancy sounds more logical than an expansion that hasn't occured for 13 years. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: IE 1 is definitely notable, and this article can be expanded. @Codename Lisa, merging this article into IE will increase the size of IE article, which is already very long.--Chmarkine (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did not nominate a merge. We delete it, no one will miss the redundant contents, and not a byte is added to that article. How's that? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very important to the history of the internet. All other versions have their own page too. Kaigew (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Internet Explorer 1 is certainly notable. Your claims of redundancy are pretty invalid on both this and IE11, as the sections on the Internet Explorer are already too large, which is why they all need splitting. Additionally, ~~AfD isn't the venue to propose merges, stop it.~~149.254.250.20 (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet Explorer. Notability is a non-issue but I guess I agree with Nate. Even if it is notable, still merge/redirect. IE is clearly notable, at what version it started to get notable (certainly before Wikipedia started), needs not be determined, not even sure that version and later should have a separate article, only more coverage in the main one. However I do not oppose any historical sustantial version articles be left alone. comp.arch (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources to justify a separate article. The only issue here is whether we have enough editors to work on this article. Fortunately, we don't have a deadline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. WP:DEADLINE does not mean we should wait forever for a snowball to pass successfully through hell. This is not a nomination for salting. So, if we delete the redundancy, when the community was ready to generate non-redundant contents, old contents can be brought back with a copy and paste from here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: If you think we should delete the redundancy, why couldn't we delete the section in the IE article (i.e. Internet Explorer#Internet Explorer 1). Clearly IE 1 contains more information than IE#IE1. Chmarkine (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did consider that idea for a millisecond, determined it is too unwise (actually, wacky), threw it away. I bet it will be reverted by first reviewer to come along. Look, I understand your concern about the size of IE article, which has a lot of potential for a split; but I refrain to take a course of action that is viewed as silly by the community. If your concerns are genuine, please consider joining us in Talk:Internet Explorer. In the meantime, however, I seriously question the rationale behind commenting on that unrelated matter here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (SNOW/NAC). There is no consensus in favor of deletion; however, the majority of participants also failed to settle on a consistent or valid reason to keep the article. Most people here simply can't imagine a world without an article titled "Internet Explorer 11"; this resembles classical conditioning or emotional insecurity but not a consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer 11[edit]

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

Redundant to Internet Explorer#Internet Explorer 11. This article is mainly composed of a lead, a "release history" section that repeats the lead (and very colorfully so) and an infobox that repeats the lead and history section again. There is also a User Agent section that is WP:IINFO. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and extend article. Internet Explorer 11 is notable enough for a lone article just like the other IE versions, but you're right about it lacking in content. 149.254.250.187 (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expand article? Surviving cancer is easier. Expand what? This is a minor update; only instead of 10.1 they called it 11. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IE11 is a big deal in the web design world, and the web design world is big. There is already more info in the article than in the section. Thue (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More in the article than IE11 section of IE article? Check again, might want to change your vote.. comp.arch (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of the first 10 IE versions have articles; why can't this version have an article?? However, I would have voted to delete an article on Internet Explorer 12 if one is created before a good amount of information is known about it. Georgia guy (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This was also my first reaction, however the IE article is synonymous with IE11, so I think duplication is not justified for the current version and this needs not be symmetric for all versions. Could argue maybe that all the version articles could go, I say use a redirect if they do not have lots of historically important material that you don't want to clutter the main one with. The redirect is optional though, but not for the most recent version. None of the version articles should be deleted outright, all major versions numbers deserve at least a redirect. comp.arch (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable version of a Windows component. IE10 and IE9 are more notable, but this is a relatively minor version that, beyond the glitch it had with Google, is otherwise non-notable. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Microsoft is moving to a fast release policy, then it makes sense to treat IE11 like we do, say Firefox or Chrome. The days of multi-year releases of IE appear to be behind us. 87Fan (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep All other versions have independant articles. However starting with ver. 9, IE has moved closer to standards compliance. Eventually, newer IE versions could probably be treated like Firefox, Safari and Chrome. Until that process has started, independant articles have been the standard. 192.209.53.20 (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All versions have independent articles. Sources are solid for this article and notability established. Basileias (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet Explorer. This article seems to mostly serve as a version history, in opposition to WP:CHANGELOG. As a redundant and unnecessary fork, deletion is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:N. The Internet Explorer article is already at 110 kilobytes and per WP:SIZERULE, articles over 100 kb "almost certainly should be divided". Also, the Internet Explorer 11 article has a significant amount of content that's not present in the Internet Explorer article; a merge is not the best option, in this case. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hi. It is 11 KB (11,290 bytes), not 110 KB. And besides, by deleting the redundant parts, it is cut down to one third. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
Hi. Keeping or deleting this article has no impact on the size of Internet Explorer article. If you are concerned about its size, this is not the correct venue to discuss it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (see my comment(s) below for what I mean..) ~~Merge, Delete, Weak Merge~~, that is, with a caviat/question. Not my first vote, but first one on deletion. I know this article will not be gone forever, however I think it's not accessible to me. There seems to be useful information here that has not been merged and my vote is conditional on that it's really will be merged. The merging is not automatic. I'm really voting on deleting or not. Not sure Weak is official, either you do it or not. comp.arch (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote after copying all relevant (I think) info to the IE article. This article can always be restored later if IE11 section in main one gets massive? comp.arch (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed again to make clear that I to not want Internet Explorer 11 (as an outside URL, IE11 as IE is noteable) gone only its content and that it be replaced by a redirect to Internet_Explorer#Internet_Explorer_11. comp.arch (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still learning the process. I thought of putting in a "merge to" template concurrently with this process but I've already merged all that I think is worth merging (just now, can someone review the Infobox, eg. version number) AND not sure putting another template in is following protocol. Redirect NOT "Delete then Redirect" is what I want, see: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Recommendations_and_outcomes. comp.arch (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD invalid claims, all other versions has articles and it's new, perhaps the article needs more time to mature. But your reason is invalid, it hasn't had time to develop into a proper article. Not a reason to delete. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 21:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IE7 to 8 was minor as well but they stil have seperate articles. Plus, IE 11's developers tools changed.ElectroPro (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then IE8 might go next? Development tools not a good argument. Already copied that info (and all other relevant info) to main article. Besides most users will not use the development tools the IE (and IE11) article points to a separate article on the tools that might be more relevant in tracking these tools. The main article should describe the most up-to-date version in my view and duplication is not good (might be refactored into an IE11 later (when not current). comp.arch (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep secondary sources meet GNG. Summary style Internet Explorer, may (or may not) grow to be more useful than currently. Widefox; talk 23:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Also I disagree that IE 11 is a minor update. No reliable sources say IE 11 is just IE 10.1. Chmarkine (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not yet fast release. -down load ׀ talk 08:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep IE's release cycle is extremely slow in comparison to Firefox and Chrome; however, IE's notoriety is waning. Kaigew (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep One page for IE should be good with releases listed there. There should not be individual pages for each release. Joe R (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article topic clearly meets WP:GNG and the OP does not dispute this. The nom seems to be based on OP's opinion of the article's quality which is not a valid reason for deletion. If such issues exist, they can be addressed through the normal editing process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we saying IE11 is not notable by deleting? It can always be restored? IE in general is notable and as for all notable software, especially the latest version, unless IE is getting irrelevant. Doesn't mean each version should have its own page? It will turn into a redirect right? With time we will see if any one version is so notable that they need a separate page, maybe the IE6 (first version?) comp.arch (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I'm saying is that there needs to be a valid reason for deletion. The OP doesn't provide a valid reason. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi. Let me give you an example: Suppose you have a rope. You can hang yourself. But must you? (I say not.) Notability is like that. We can create a separate article. But must we? What's the point of saying "IE was released on 17 October 2013" five times?
- Notability is NOT an issue whether to get rid of content in this article. Internet Explorer should describe the most recent version as well as it can. Think of it this way. Let's say there was only the first version of anything, IE or say your favorite actress, and she changes hairstyle, minor upgrade - maybe not notable. Now if see gets a major upgrade - a boobjob (or reverse see Angelina Jolie) - might be notable. Notability only controls whether we write about it (and start an article if concept not in Wikipedia already), we will not make a new article for the actress. Heck, people have had their changed sex and still have the same article (with a changed name). comp.arch (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TheLoneTraveller (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As versions come out faster and faster, it must be deleted at some point. Jdc1197 - (talk · userpage · contributions) 01:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, though, is that Notability is not temporary. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but notablity doesn't say we need a separate page for each version, only that Internet Explorer page should never be deleted. If we think about notability for each version separately then IE10 could be and IE11 could be not, even then I say all the versions we think are notable could be included in the IE article and only use a IE-version redirects to the relevant sections in the main IE article. comp.arch (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if we include all versions in the IE article, it will be so long. Chmarkine (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to do that, I see no reason to NOT treat the most recent version differently if we want to. I was thinking of proposing splitting up Internet Explorer - take all historically important info out anyway. All pre-IE6 at least, if not up to (almost) the most current version (then it would end up being exactly this article.. plus some general stuff and links to older info). comp.arch (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Last Nomination): The IE11 was already released!!!!!! Timothyhouse1 (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article on Internet Explorer cannot contain all information relevant to this particular version, so having a separate article for the version should be allowed. And since there is a well-maintained one (though it can obviously still be expanded), I see no reason to delete it. And this is not (yet?) a fast release cycle. SPQRobin (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is currently doing it by holding a comparable copy of this article. So, if you see no reason to delete, perhaps you are not looking at all. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This new version of IE is noticeably different and notable enough to merit its own article. —mc10 (t/c) 05:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs from Daria[edit]

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

This is a misnomer even though it was just moved: this a list of songs possibly played on the show Daria. But such lists are little more than trivia for fans; there's five paragraphs on the topic in the article and that ought to be enough. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should be transferred to any of the Daria fan pages that want it, but it's just not notable enough for its own topic on Wikipedia. I find it useful for my own nostalgia purposes since I've always meant to find and collect all of the songs, but WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a reason to keep in any way, shape, or form. Anything that can be said about the music itself is already on the article and ultimately this is a relatively indiscriminate list of trivia when you get down to it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like at least one site already has the songs, complete with the episodes it's supposed to match with, so it looks like there's no true need to transwiki any of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically just an indiscriminate collection of information useful only to fans. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was disambiguate. WJBscribe (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Polar[edit]

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

I first saw this article because it was tagged as a G11, which I declined. More recently, an IP changed everything from Peru to Venezuela. I reverted that change, but after looking more closely, I think it may be a Venezuelan product (see here). That said, I see no notability, whichever country it comes from, although it's hard to figure out if there's more than one product. Anyway, it should either be deleted or clarified and properly sourced (it was created in 2008 and has little history) it passes WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the edit history, the page was about the Peruvian beer until an anon IP editor added the Venezuelan beverage. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone adds two sources which meet WP:GNG before 20 October 2013. (Rationale: This short article is unsourced; challenged unsourced material is not allowed to remain on Wikipedia.) Dear non-Wikipedians: Please see WP:42 for a brief discussion of which types of sources are acceptable. —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News search reveals lots of articles in reliable sources covering the subject substantially. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Venezuelan company is definitely notable. I have disambiguated that subject at the top of this article. This beer brand seems to have changed its name to Pilsner Polar. The page should disambiguate with links to the company that made the Peruvian beer and the company that makes the Venezuelan beer. Since articles on the parent subjects already exist it would be senseless to delete the article. I would go ahead and disambiguate but people freak out if you make the changes need during the deletion discussion so it will have to wait. Perhaps the closing administrator can let me know when the discussion concludes? It's tough to put off needed edits because pages can get lost and forgotten. I have a long watchlist. Feel free to drop me a ntoe when the time comes? Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Screw it. I went ahead and turned the page into a disambiguation. The article already covered two distinct subject both of which have articles on their parent companies. If someone objects they are free to undo. We are here to improve the encyclopedia. No reason to hone to mindless and unhelpful bureaucracy. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffman Vodka[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 07:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have added various newspaper references. There are these plus various other media items which include this firm's vodka in lists of extremely expensive high-end gifts etc. In sum, I think there is enough to make an argument that it is a notable niche firm. AllyD (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the references added by AllyD. Although I think that this product is a ridiculously overpriced indulgence, and the notion of adding a vintage to neutral spirits is absurd, it seem that this is a notable absurdity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, but merge/redirect discussions should take place on the relevant article talk pages. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tahita Bulmer[edit]

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

I redirected this article and was reverted a few weeks later by an IP, with no reason given. I cannot see any independent notability here, and therefore suggest a redirect/merge with her band article, NYPC. Giant Snowman 16:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because many editors had contributed to the article over several years and then you took it upon yourself to redirect with no consultation with those editors or reached consensus anywhere that the article should be redirected.

92.8.25.148 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD. Giant Snowman 18:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her band, lacks independent notability. PETA and VIVA are not reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was profiled in The Guardian and The Independent, two reliable sources, and Electronic Beats and The Quietus, two possibly reliable source. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Young Pony Club. Not enough sourced encyclopedic content for a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will Brooks[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet notability criteria. GingerClick (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to his resume[29] there are solo and group exhibitions, and press articles. Uncertain if this meets WP:ARTIST #3 or #4, it might. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon. Can be restored if artist establishes himself and gains recognition exhibited in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear consensus on whether the sources listed constitute "significant coverage" or not. I suggest discussion continue on the article's talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

F.A.R.T. the Movie[edit]

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

This was a redirect to "Fart" but was restored as it had page history. I'm listing it here so we can get consensus as to whether it really is notable or not. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GNG, doubtful this fits the notability criteria for films. Nothing in the article asserts why it is notable, either. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Silly film. Silly title. However and despite the article not specifcally saying "hey, I am notable", in looking for commentary and analysis in independent sources we find this film topic appears to meet WP:NF... just barely. NOTE: In searches care must be taken to not confuse this film with the 2002 Kevin Farley film of the exact same name. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the sources reveals a couple of reliable ones that have a generic page for the film, but almost none that give it any in-depth coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Q Schmidt's analysis of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Wide coverage on net. Simple search leads to review on Rottentomatoes etc Although not sure if it is worthy of being on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joer jamaica (talk • contribs) 19:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no critic reviews of this film (which would be reliable sources) on Rotten Tomatoes. Moreover, Michael Q Schmidt's links lead to few reliable sources either, certainly not what I'd call significant coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evidence of this passing the GNG has been presented. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 06:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pace Tower[edit]

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

Article about an apartment tower in Lahore, Pakistan. Article claims this building is finished now with two non-reputable sources. All I could find is this is an building site, with no evidence if this is under construction or an abandoned shell. Can anybody proof? Ben Ben (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the proof http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=214645 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsin17 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your source states, that it is a construction site. Since 2004 untill now. Your article claims, that it is a finished building. Someone is lying here, or doesn't get it. --Ben Ben (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sourcing is poor. Skyscrapercity is a forum and therefore not a reliable source, the two other sources are closely related to the project. The CTBUH's skyscraper center doesn't list it, but there is a listing at Emporis showing it under construction. There is also photos of a building site on Google Maps. Does it exist? Yes; Do reliable sources show it exists? Yes; Does that alone make it notable? Not so sure. It is worth noting that South Asia is particularly poorly served with reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your comment. I have asked the author directly, why he is doing this. --Ben Ben (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your suggestion that Mohsin17 might be a sock of Nabil rais2008 is unwarranted. Until the unfortunate incident that led to him being indef blocked, Nabil rais had a pretty good record (in my opinion) as an editor with several thousand edits to his name. He certainly wouldn't make such a rookie mistake as using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a keep rationale or citing an unreliable source in an AfD. Astronaut (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about sockism is on Mohsin17 talk page. Probably two different users, they both came from the same forum and have similar problems to distinct facts from fantasy. Writing an article about a building, stating that it is finished although it is a building shell or not even started is a strange behaviour for an author in an encyclopedia. That is WP:FANCRUFT and should stay in their forum. --Ben Ben (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haved worked a bit on the article. Inserted your emporis.com source, deleted the non-reliable from the forum, changed status from finished to under constrution, corrected the hight (76 m, not 88m) and the completion date (unknown instead of 2013). So, the article isn't anymore a fan project. Is this enough to establish WP:GNG? Don't know, an admin has to decide that. I'm not really interested in that (why do I do that actually?). BTW, user:Nabil rais2008 indef block has been shortend to 3 months. Our author here, User:Mohsin17 is most likely a reincarnation of the indefed User:Muhammad Mohsin Farooq. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you can see it through google satellites pace tower is topped out... you can visit the buiding ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsin17 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all can see the pictures that it is under construction. The remaining question is, if this is enough to pass the threshold of the General notability guideline? Please do me the favour and start to read this guideline, understanding it is essentiell for deletion discussions. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion which shows we cannot establish whether this is actually a building that exists. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is the proof that it is toppe out and is taller than 90 meters,
http://www.ugo.cn/photo/PK/en/27880.htm

It has all the information...

http://www.urbanpk.com/forums/index.php/topic/238-lahore-pace-towers/
We have measured its length. Unfortunately, we (Pakistanis) have poor internet service and do not make more websites. Internet service is still expensive here.

Mohsin17 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure either of those sites meet the requirement for reliable sources and even if they were reliable, I'm still not convinced the building meets the requuirements of the General notability guideline. Astronaut (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this is not my default reaction to tall buildings articles at AfD - they are often one among dozens in cities where online news sources are numerous. However, in this case this is probably the second tallest building in the second largest city in Pakistan. There are one or two news sources available which point to its importance. Granted, there are some daft sources used in the article, for example photos on forums, which should be removed. Sionk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched three Pakistani news websites for ("pace building") and ("pace tower"). At the Express Tribune website, a search for ("pace tower") produced no results; a search for ("pace building") produced a single hit, a six-paragraph piece (cited in AfD candidate article) on fire-safety inspections that mentioned the Pace Building only once, in a list of five buildings that'd been inspected. Searching the Daily Times website turned up only a 2004 story, cited in the article, announcing that construction would start soon; there's apparently been no coverage in the DT since then. Searching the Dawn website produced no results at all. Given the apparent dearth of coverage in Pakistan, I'd say that this fails GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adria Vasil[edit]

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

No coverage in independent, mainstream sources shown, outside a short mention in The Globe and Mail [30] which by itself doesn't seem sufficient. Perhaps her book Ecoholic or the series of thereof would be notable, but even that would fail it based on existing sources. As it stands, fails notability for WP:AUTHOR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ecoholic was reviewed in the Toronto Star, National Post and Canoe.ca. That alone would mean she meets WP:AUTHOR as far as I'm concerned. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Those sources focus on her book rather then herself. That said, if they are added to the article, they could help save it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Those sources focus on her book rather then herself." Yes, that's precisely what criterion #3 of WP:AUTHOR allows for. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is quite a number of article in various newspapers, sites and blogs. It's a good article, well sourced, for a published author. scope_creep talk 18:27, 06 October 2013 (UTC)

Blogs are usually not reliable sources. It's best to link to sources so we know what you mean. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage of the author and her books in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Established journalist with plenty of articles in NOW Magazine. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I too think we should keep, I should point out that simply being published in Now, however often, doesn't seem to me to satisfy any part of WP:AUTHOR. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 05:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rana (film)[edit]

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

It is a shelved film ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – The film's principal photography and the initial schedule of shoot are enough to prove the notability. The film's pre-production works have received adequate media coverage. In addition, some reports have stated that the film has only been delayed and there are indications that Eros International is planning to release the film in 2014 —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete — it's possible that this film will be dropped. No official word on the film to take off anytime soon. All sources that suggest the positive likeliness of this film's production are unverifiable. It's probably better to have it deleted. Numerous films which have finished filming but have not yet been released have pages on Wikipedia. Rather not make that list grow with Rana, which didn't complete anymore than one schedule. EelamStyleZ // TALK 16:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This film appears to have the same status as Marudhanayagam, but I finally feel that the article contains large info about Rajini's ill health - an unforgettable event in his life. In that case I think we can keep the article instead of delete. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if you read the article, this is akin to a planned U.S. movie having included Robert Redford, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, etc. in the pre-production cast list. Clearly notable, and well referenced. --Soman (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sometimes films can become notable even if they never release and this is one of those rare films. There are some sources on the page that would be considered dodgy by WP's standards, but most of them are from places that we'd consider usable, such as NDTV. This has received a lot of coverage, probably because it has a pretty notable cast. That's not a reason in itself to keep, as notability is not inherited, but I can see where that aspect has gotten the movie the coverage it has. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Gierszał[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Lacks independent references. reddogsix (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The actor has won multiple awards, such as Eagles (Polish film award), European Shooting stars award. He has starred in films which are distributed across the English, German and Polish speaking world. His roles are not confined to one language, he is starring in a British film at present. As for fans, he has got fans from all over the world, one can see that at on a tumblr page devoted to him. His movie "Suicide room" has become a cult classic for many teenagers.

Any contributions to the article, including independent references would be appreciated. --Fasterthansputnik (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a couple of references and cross-links to the award and nomination received by the subject. The Shooting Stars Award looks fairly strong; my only question would be whether it is about up-and-coming versus attained notability? AllyD (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it? It's not mentioned in any books. I have concerns whether we shouldn't delete it next; do you see any sources that show that the Shooting Stars Award received coverage in mainstream, reliable media? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even try to look for coverage? I find Google is quite useful for that kind of thing.[31][32][33][34][35]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR #1 with the lead role in Suicide Room, joint lead in Lasting (Nieulotne)[36][37], and a major role in Finsterworld, all of which are notable films with festival prizes, reviews, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Street dogs in Bucharest. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 07:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asociația Cuțu Cuțu[edit]

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

With the exception of one comment that occasioned one or two news cycles of coverage, this organization has essentially been ignored by the press in the eleven years it's existed. There's no particular reason to keep the article around. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia guidelines, general notability =/= ongoing coverage. This organization has received attention from various media outlets on an annual basis for the past few years. Indeed, it is not nearly as significant as other transnational NGOs, but it is by far one of the largest animal rights groups in Romania.

Furthermore, it is safe to say that this is probably the only Romanian NGO that receives enough attention from the press in order for anyone to be able to write a Wiki article about it. There are plenty of secondary sources out there to document the notability of this NGO. [some of which I am going to add to the article in a short while to further document the significance of the NGO]

It could be turned into a permanent stub, that seems like a viable option, but deleting it would be an unjustified measure under the current circumstances. Thevaluablediamond (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Thus far, of your recent additions, the only one I see that mentions this group by name is a press release from their president hosted by the shady hotnews.ro. Not exactly the gold standard when it comes to reliable, independent coverage. Other than that, we have just words from you regarding media attention, but nothing concrete.
- I absolutely believe that, on the model of Street dogs in Moscow and Street dogs in Bangkok, an article on Street dogs in Bucharest is warranted. It's an ongoing major issue for over two decades in a major city, with consistent coverage domestically and internationally. But "Asociația Cuțu Cuțu"? Not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a "major restructuring" template on. ~~I will add those sources in the bibliography after I'm done writing the history part.~~ No, actually, now that you brought it up, that article concerning street dogs seems like a good idea. The ACC part can remain a subsection of the article, which will highlight the main events that were somehow related to ACC. Maybe someone can do the merging after the article Street dogs in Bucharest is going to be created. Thevaluablediamond (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you create the new article - it doesn't have to be too long at first, since the notability of the topic is obvious - and merge/redirect this one, I'll consider the AfD as withdrawn. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article about street dogs has been created. I will work on it, but I suppose it is comprehensive enough for now. It features the most notable events and it has a subsection on all those NGOs. Thevaluablediamond (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Street dogs of Bucharest per consensus of above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Street dogs of Bucharest, per discussion above. Ammodramus (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 07:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bizible[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG. I don't see significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources here but I'm not American so may be undervaluing some of them. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 13 October 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 October 13. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To me, the sources linked in the article seem like significant coverage. Two full articles in Geekwire, one full article in Small Business Trends, and a couple of paragraphs in Xconomy - do you have concerns about any of those sources? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two GeekWire sources count as a single source per GNG, and not a great source. A few of the other sources don't mention Bibible at all. The remaining concern standard funding announcements which mean very little for company notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is part of the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277, it was initially a paid promotion piece, recreated in new form here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep young company that has received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 the actual article makes no claim to significance other than by inheritance. LGA _talk^edits 06:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article in Small Business Trends represents somewhat in-depth coverage by an independent source. The articles in Search Engine Land don't go into as much depth, but cover other aspects of the company. At present, the article is fairly lacking, but there seems to be enough coveage out there to put together a decent stub; and the coverage is wide enough to suggest some degree of notability. I'd give this one the benefit of the doubt. Ammodramus (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CashU[edit]

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

No evidence of notability and no reliable sources cited. I was unable to find any sources via Google News, Books, or Scholar. EBSCOhost turned up a couple of hits, but almost all appear to be passing mentions except one article in the Economist. There's no full-text available for that one, so I can't tell if it's in-depth, and one source isn't sufficient for notability anyway. Infotrac OneFile and Newsstand were similarly unhelpful; there were several Arab newspaper hits from earlier this year because CashU published a malware warning, but I just can't find anything in-depth to establish notability. —Darkwind (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, I didn't A7 the article because the first paragraph credibly asserts importance, I just can't find the sources to back it up. —Darkwind (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a fair amount of coverage for this: three scholarly articles (Trust Factors Influencing Intention to Adopt Online Payment in Kuwait, Digital Currencies and the Financing of Terrorism, and The Failure of Mobile Payment: Evidence From Quasi-Experimentations), one book (Startup Rising: The Entrepreneurial Revolution Remaking the Middle East) and one news article (Mena online transactions at $91 billion in 2011). --Cerebellum (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the PayPal of the middle east. Wincent77 (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it crops up in the media from time to time. Qemist (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 real improvement has been done to this article since the last time it visited AFD, as the only additional sources added are not reliable by any means. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 07:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Singh (author)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article appears to be little more than a recreation of the previously-deleted version. I'm seeing no additional evidence of notability ... unless my memory is fading with age. Sitush (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this enough to prove a persons notability ?

~~Weak~~ delete. The previous article had huge WP:COI problems (the photo uploaded by user:rrashmissingh is a leftover from this bit of autobiography) but I don't see enough evidence to establish that she (or her publishers) wrote this version. That said, this is just marginally compliant on WP:RS (of nine sources, six look to be reviews or opinion pieces from bloggers) and that leaves this borderline on establishing notability for an WP:AUTHOR. There are many books in print, what makes this one special enough to be notable? K7L (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The re-creation came after this request made by the WP:SPA known as Ananyaprasad (talk · contribs). - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is problematic as a copy-paste move breaks attribution, a WP:COPYVIO issue. K7L (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous article had huge WP:COI problems.... having a copyvio issue (Copying within Wikipedia),........ but that is no reason to delete. -- Doreen Reinders (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a sufficiently identical and unimproved recreation of something already voted for deletion is a candidate for speedy deletion. The same is true of "unambiguous advertising or promotion" and "unambiguous copyright violation". K7L (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since K7L (talk · contribs) was involved in the last discussion and seems to consider this to be a recreation, it looks like my memory is not playing tricks and this should indeed be speedy-deleted per CSD criterion G4. Doubtless an admin could check the previously deleted version but since it is now obvious that this present version emerged from Ananyaprasad's draft, which itself was taken from the deleted version, the outcome seems to be inevitable. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also query whether Vasundhrasharma (talk · contribs) and Ananyaprasad (talk · contribs) are meatpuppets. THe timing of the former's AfC effort and the latter's request noted here is likely to be more than coincidence. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a supposed "alternate account" created yesterday, with few contributions to anything other than this discussion, vociferously wants the article kept. How can you argue with that? K7L (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the national AFD list should India, not England, even though she writes in English. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't see anything wrong with the sources in this article and The Telegraph (Calcutta), Oneindia.in is an excellent primary. There is a certain degree of suspicion for all Indian newspapers that they base their stories on press releases, but the sources given is clearly not a press release. That the popular English-language newspaper & news portal in the country published articles on them is notability. The articles clearly do establish the status. I wonder if the doubters can find similar coverage for others writers, having a wikipedia page --. I'm sure they won't. She has written books. Some people have done much less than that and can be found on WP. -- Doreen Reinders (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the prior discussion? The sources that you refer to were discussed there and the citations used on this occasion are identical to those used previously. They are neither qualitatively suitable nor sufficient in number. Oneindia and The Telegraph both regularly copy stuff, including from ourselves. In fact, it some issues of The Telegraph can take the appearance of being nothing but assembled copies from other (usually unattributed) sources. Whether similar coverage can be found for other writers is a completely irrelevance - see WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last batch of "sources" to be added to the article is even lower in quality... she wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper? a local schoolmaster gave her a potted plant? Egads, if this is how badly one must scrape the bottom of the barrel, this is not notable. K7L (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are of sufficient quality and number to pass WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, exactly what you said last time. You were wrong then, so please could you explain what is different now? - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: for "wrong" read "on the wrong side of consensus". - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure why you didn't just speedy or AfD it in the first place, given that you were involved in the prior deletion discussion. I presume that you misremembered but that is no excuse for misremembering now that it has been made clear. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by reason of CSD#G4 from previous discussion as the article is not sufficiently improved and unimproved from the form it was when it was originally deleted. The proper forum for appeal to the original deletion was at WP:DRV not a second creation of the same piece.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why has been E Books written by the author has been deleted in the bibliography section when links with it were given to verify and one of the e book is in bestseller rank at Amazon? Next, I do no think it is a copy of the previous one. Except the bibliography section, nothing is same. Obviously husband and children's name would be the same! And educational qualification can not change either. But in the previous one there were 4 books. She has written One more and there were couple of ebooks too ding so well of which I was unaware which unfortunately has been deleted! Copying does not call for a deletion. Wikipedia clearly says that only a single notable link is enough to prove any author's notability even if the article has been badly drafted Instead of deleting vote you should have worked n it to improve. It has been supported by Wikiproject Bihar and has been kept in high importance-this means this author holds a lot of importance of Bihar. Ananyaprasad (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That High-Importance for Wikiproject Bihar was a rating placed by the article creator in this edit to the article Talk page, so it is not clear that any inference can be drawn from it. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. @Ananyaprasad High importance at WikiProject Bihar is an internal assessment and can in no way indicate any notability. Those parameters can be changed by anyone.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 08:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does not fail WP:AUTHOR It has many excellent primary and secondary sources.WP:AUTHOR says about the notability of author as 'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors'. check http://www.ryanfaridabad.co.in/ViewAnnouncementsDetail.aspx?id=108 and http://www.amarujala.com/page.php?c=faridabad&n=Faridabad-29068-139 Her fifth book is on Pulksein 2 of South India and has been quoted by all sites dealing with Chalukya dynasty of India but I have not posted as they will be deleted. Next Ryan International Group of Institutions will never invite a non notable writer in their Independence day function and felicitate her/him. Next- what is reason for the deletion of ebooks? If the links were not suitable, they should have been deleted-why the names of the books?Ananyaprasad (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is your post reply to my post above or a general comment ? --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you may think.I just want to say the deletion votes are coming mostly 'cause of bad drafting which makes no sense to delete an article. The article has excellent sources like The Telegraph Oneindia.in Amar Ujala The Economic Times Ryan International Group of Institutions In the first deletion it was marginally meeting the notability as it was having only 2 good sources. Now it has many. Rest the admin will decideAnanyaprasad (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion votes are coming because this is a re-creation of an article already voted for deletion as blatant self-promotion, there is no substantial improvement in sources from the deleted version and what "sources" have been newly added are blog posts. Not every WP:AUTHOR is notable as Wikipedia is WP:NOT a list of books in print. The article is an advertisement to sell the book. K7L (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then all other Authors' articles should be deleted or book's wiki should be deleted. Actually your mind is set because you had managed to get this article deleted. Now let the others decide. You even held up the deletion of Usha Kiran Khan created by me which is again recreated effectively! When people want to know about their authors, esp from their state/home/country then this is not the case of self promotion or selling any book! In fact I have noticed that every author is having their official website to see books but both Usha Kiran and Rashmi Singh are not having any personal website to sell books. Since Singh is a contemporary author, she maybe present on social media networking sites- in fact it is from these sites we come to know about them Ananyaprasad (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "substantial coverage", bearing in mind that it basically repeats the previously deleted article? It is mostly PR stuff and that is specifically not sufficient to ensure notability. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Amar Ujala Ryan International Group of Institutions and her latest book review of Oneindia.in http://www.boldsky.com/insync/pulse/2013/untold-story-of-arundhati-black-emperor-035308.html were not in the previous article-nor her ebooks, of which I weren't aware, are deleted without giving any reason. Even this wasn't there in the previous one http://isahitya.com/index.php/new-age-sahitya/new-age-sahitya/511-writing-is-a-perennial-source-of-quenching-my-thirst-of-knowledge-and-feelings-rashmi-singh ,The Telegraph one is a very extensive interview and The Economic Times again a book review, hence it is no case of PR stuff.Ananyaprasad (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Admin decide. Taking my vote off. As I am busy creating another article on Usha Kiran Khan but not able to do so. Thought, I'll learn on this then move to other important articlesAnanyaprasad (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — Ananyaprasad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The Telegraph piece is not an article about her, but an interview published in the regional pages. THe other two "main" sources are crowd sourced interviews including one by a person completing her Bachelor of Technology. Being invited by a high school group as an invited speaker is also not any sign of notability (been there, done that). On the whole, there's nothing to suggest notability or substantial reliable source coverage. —SpacemanSpiff 07:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Mr Admin, I feel a kind of foul play is going on of some kind of lobbyism and stalking. I created a page Usha Kiran Khan, which was reviewed and flagged off. But it was put to speedy deletion and deleted within hours cause there were some copy paste issue in the draft. The author being extremely notable was not the concern of these Wikipedian- their main concern was to delete. It was put to speedy deletion by one here and deleted by another present here! This is so very absurd!! Instead of changing the draft a li'l when Wikipedia clearly says that try maintaining notable articles! Now it is clear that those in favor of deletion of this page is not against this article but any article made by me!(The first version was made by me and deleted by the one who is doing his best to delete now) Next who deleted Usha Kiran Khan says "Being invited by a high school group as an invited speaker is also not any sign of notability (been there, done that)" May I ask if how many are invited like this by any respectable instt- Can he cite any example. If a notable person is of their town or state, it is matter of pride for them! Otherwise this Instt has invited APJ Abdul Kalam also, so now ppl can say 'retired- no work - so available" Actually hordes of article and all one liners are created by Mr SpacemanSpiff without any notable source to establish which I don't know how all playing in/out of notability game have kept them, Next "interviews including one by a person completing her Bachelor of Technology."- to this I have to say, here most of the Wikipedians are school goers so havnt they got brains? What is it do with if the reporter is doing B Tech, Next interview of the Telegraph is not a regional thing. It's in their main paper- as Telegraph is published from Kolkatta. There are so many Rashmi Singh's. In India this name is very common but how many are notable? Why leave out The Economic Times and Oneindia.in's book review? Are they also regional? It is very funny that maturity should succumb to stalking.This way ppl wl definitely lose interest in Wiki and not respect even. I know now whatever article I'll create, will be deleted ! Ananyaprasad (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are rules about this see WP:HOUNDing: "creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." SpacemanSpiff is an administrator in a conflict dispute over this AfD. Ananyaprasad has expressed distress that she is feeling like she is being hounded. I have not seen the Usha Kiran Khan copyvio but it could have been given a copyvio warning instead of instant deletion right after creation. I thought this edit by SpacemanSpiff was a purposeful slight on the article: "start class a stretch" - there is nothing before start class. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in an AfD and deleting copyvio when I'm in the midst of just doing a wide set of such tasks is not any conflict. I think you lot should stop this nonsense right away rather than waste everyone's time. Oh, stub comes before start, so if you don't know anything at all about these things, it's better you don't comment. —SpacemanSpiff 02:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems AP is hounding SpacemanSpiff by nominating Anagha Deshpande for deletion although it clearly passes WP:NCRIC.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Not hounding. If there are sources for all Spaceman Spiff's one liner articles- let him improve. I also do not want any notable Indian to be deleted off from Wiki. But Why you , Spacemaspiff and one or two more are have formed a party/gropup here and this even a blind person can see! Coming openli in favor of each other Ananyaprasad (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know others, but the one Anagha Deshpande you nominated clearly passes notability and also has appropriate citations to verify. So nominated that for deletion is a textbook case of revenge editing. And you better stop accusing everyone who disagree with you of working in a team, you are inching yourself toward a block.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article passes specific guidelines but not general notability guidelines. Also see Wikipedia:Hound#Reactions_to_harassment which is what happened to Ananyaprasad. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Mr Vigyani, are you threatening me? Instead of putting your energy to articles you are threatening me to block an trying to save Spaceman Spiff's act. If you block me, then it surely now clear that you can to any limits to do get it done what you want. Rashmi Singh's article is fully notable and let others discuss it. Ananyaprasad (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AP It is called warning not threat. @GC I have not worked on sports related pages. But as I understand, once any specific guidelines are met, the GNG are not required. In the case of AP's alleged harassment, I feel it is being blown out of proportion. I have not seen the deleted version of AP's other creation. But arguing that an admin after voting in an AfD stands disqualified from taking action against other other articles of an editor who voted opposite in the same AfD debate is clearly absurd, especially in case of copyvio's. On the other hand AP here is unnecessarily being aggressive and not assuming good faith.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also rules about copy-paste of text from external sources. Wikipedia is a bit draconian about WP:COPYVIO so there's nothing unusual about such being removed immediately instead of through a lengthy debate. K7L (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Mr K7L Wikipedia is also stict about the fact that notable articles should be tried and kept, saved instead of jumping on it in draconian style! Ananyaprasad (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr K7L You should be apprised that the I had rectified those 2 lines in Usha Kiran Khan. which seemed to be copied/pasted then also it was immediately deleted by the team making insulting edits and comments here. I do not think articles of Wikipedia should be hounded. Many people want to know about this author who is extremely popular in her State more than the place where she is residing and being called as a Speaker as she became the first Woman fron Bihar in 2011 with Love's Journey to write English fiction. In fact there was a wrong reporting abt another Writer who debuted in 2012- here also there was a little issue but it was settled as when the newspaper published a CLARIFICATION (the author's letter) in their paper about her claim and there was no opposition as it was the truth. Refer "The Times of India". Patna. 18 December 2012. Retrieved 24 October 2012.Mr admin, I am still leaning about edits but whatever article I pick up- I do so on solid grounds. It is not just spam or a hoax! Given that Rashmi Singh was called as a speakeras she was there- why then the she have to write her HOME STATE newspaper to rectify the error? Amar Ujala and all other sources are wrong and unimportant inluding The Telegraph and The Economic Times , Oneindia.in? And what does this recent one say in Times of India neighbourhood, Delhi "The Times of India". Delhi. 27th October 2013. ((cite news)): Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) PS Why the edit by Spaceman Spiff is made on the talk page from mid/high importance to low? Has he got any source to do so? 01:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is this link removed http://www.ryanfaridabad.co.in/ViewAnnouncementsDetail.aspx?id=108 when WP: AUTHOR clearly says that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Ananyaprasad (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this line 'Singh is also amongst few women from Bihar to write English fictions and make contributions to Bihari literature ' from the start para removed using TW ? How can the one doing the revert say/ establish that Bihari literature is a puff piece? Once using TW the person doing so must establish this or should delete Bihari literature if it is a puff piece. Why keep it? Bihari literature might be unsourced but has names of ppl having places in Wikipedia with reliable sources? Ananyaprasad (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush You have actually misunderstood. She was there to hoist flag and had spoken to the students. In it is clearly written ' The guest congratulated the students and expressed that Independence day for her is a symbol of Patriotism and celebrating this day means remembering those who sacrificed their lives to make India free from British rule. She advised the students to be well read , well informed and stay grounded. The programme culminated with a high feelings of patriotism.' Now tell me what does it mean? You think a non notable person will be anywhere in the world called to motivate the students and hoist the flag? Potted plant in India is given to the Prez as well. This is our kind of tradition.Ananyaprasad (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

She wasn't opening up anything which you have imagined on your own she was hoisting the flag- Indian flag which only renowned people of India can touch. It is written 'The flag hoisting was done by the chief guest of the day Ms. Rashmi Singh which was followed by National Anthem and pledge for the country.' Yes I am not doing deliberately- this you have got it correct as I read the content then find a correct word for it. You have not read the content and thought she had gone their to open up something- Ryan group is one of the most prestigious group of inst in India- this all knowAnanyaprasad (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Having looked at the subject's credentials, I think, going by what she has written to date, every Mills & Boon author (many of them write under pseudonymns) could claim notability going by the number of copies of their books sold or read worldwide. The subject may or not be the first person from her region to have written a novel or anything in English. That in itself seems a doubtful claim to notability. I would have liked to see substantial, meaningful reviews of her books, written by recognised literary critics. Libraries everywhere are full of books by people who have written books and remain anonymous.- Zananiri (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Read the bibliography. Don't go by the names of the novel. She has written non fictions and the recent one is of Historical genre (read its reviews- links are given) . Voting on assumptions is not required here. Ananyaprasad (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC) AndZananiri How can you read when the reviews here of even The Economic Times are being callously deleted? Links are deleted/ reviews are deleted/ have gone so far to even delete ISBN as it is not found on Amazon etc. Hence I have posted Amazon's link- Next they'll delete Amazon link that it sells books and promotional! Tell me how can you read anything then? Ananyaprasad (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:AUTHORS. As was discussed in the previous AFD the coverage in the two nominally reliable sources (the interview in Telegraph India and the one book review in Economic Times) are insufficient to establish that the subject is "regarded as an important figure" in literature or "created, ..., a significant or well-known work,... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The other sources cited in the current version of the article are completely unreliable and seem to be amongst the suite of websites that have cropped up in India recently exclusively to promote authors, apparently in exchange of payment (aside: this phenomenon seems to parallel the fake "open access" journals that have also bloomed in India recently). I think AFD and AFC regulars should be aware of this, so I'll outline a few suspicious signs below:
- spectralhues.com: Read their About us and note that it gives us no idea of the sites publishers. Their contact page does not list any physical address, just a web form and a gmail/spectralhues email address. Their Advertise with us page admits, "Spectralhues promotes authors as well as provide web content, web development and editorial services to others. Spectralhues bring fresh and unique opportunity for writers to exchange & share their views and ideas by discussing on numerous subjects and address the core issues." (emphasis added)
- Isahitya.com: They are even more direct on their Advertisement page, "We also have special advertisement arrangement for established writers to showcase their upcoming books or existing books to our visitors .But we only request this to well established writers not new comers . For young emerging writers we have our free special promotion program." (emphasis added)

Also note the absence (as far as I can tell) of any negative reviews or challenging interviews on these promotional websites. For future reference, other websites of the same ilk, though not used in this article, include bookchums and finuraa.com. The latter by the way removed their pay for promotion package advertisement page (archived here) after it was pointed out at previous AFDs, so we can expect the above and similar website to get more subtle in their marketing soon. Ever more the reason for wiki editors to be aware and vigilant. Abecedare (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you've described is nominally called a vanity review, related to the vanity award phenomenon (article I created) - not unique to India. Ideally we would have an investigative journalist in a reliable source confirm a vanity shop such as this source.[38] I looked at spectralhues.com Advertise with us and it appears to be for banner adds. As well the Isahitya.com Advertisement page is about banner adds. Though I can see a more subtle reading would be for paid reviews, maybe not.. If these are vanity shops they must be advertising their services somewhere more explicitly to bring in new business. Suggest a list be created of suspected vanity shops with compiled evidence anyone can contribute. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference in the article is spectralhues.com where, according to the subject's own Linkedin entry, she is currently a columnist per http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Rashmi/Singh Backscratching personified, I would say, apart from raising questions about the relevance of that reference .- Zananiri (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If she is a columnist at spectralhues.com then there is a clear COI with that source and it should be removed. -- :::Green Cardamom (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom (talk) But she became a columnist http://www.spectralhues.com/celebrity-speak/ (check the dates) after about a month the of the interview. http://www.spectralhues.com/author-interview/page/3/ If any site feels the author has depth and approaches her to write after the interview (seeing her success)- can it be in COI? - the review of her latest book has also come from this site http://www.spectralhues.com/book-world/2013/09/untold-story-arundhati-black-emperor-book-review/ but after she has been writing here so it is good that, ithis link ha not been put in the article . But the Interview was taken before she had become a Columnist, so is there any harm in putting it? Next the 'motivator' word was deleted from the article but thanks to Zaniri for posting Linkedin link and backscratching, I found this there http://www.slideshare.net/rashmi211 with 5 documents of her having considerable no of views and downloads. Maybe as the the administrator is Rashmi Singh here but the views proves her skill. Ananyaprasad (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverages are substantial and enough WP:GNG No Reason to delete when her latest work is also termed 'dintinct' and 'different' and has been upheld for dealing with the Kingdoms of South India by Oneindia.in -which no other author probably has done till yet. South Indian kings and the details of their kingdoms have been very first time woven into fictionAnanyaprasad (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only one blogger/content writer has called the book distinct and different. which the creator of this article is using to back her statement viz. http://www.boldsky.com/insync/pulse/2013/untold-story-of-arundhati-black-emperor-035308.html. The same blogger has written about the book on another website cited in the article: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18489486-the-untold-story-of-arundhati-and-the-black-emperor#other_reviews But one person's opinion is not considered opinion and does not satisfy WP criteria for an article. One swallow does not a summer make, as the saying goes. Earlier, the Hindi newspaper Amar Ujala was being cited in the article as a source vouching for the notability of the subject. This, too, proved to be wide off the mark.

As for the subject having received wide coverage, newspaper interviews with all sorts of writers, conducted by reporters doing their day job, are a common feature in Indian newspapers. Similarly, write-ups about their books by such reporters are not book reviews. The only reviews that really count are those of established literary critics. I have still not found any. In fact, when asked whether she was plannong to write some serious fiction, the subject herself replied (in this source also cited in the article http://isahitya.com/index.php/new-age-sahitya/new-age-sahitya/511-writing-is-a-perennial-source-of-quenching-my-thirst-of-knowledge-and-feelings-rashmi-singh): Well, I am writing one... I think that is a telling statement. She was alluding to her latest book, I imagine,, but it is still very early days to say that it is considered to be distinct just because one blogger/content writer thinks so, not forgetting that these bloggers/content writers at such sites are also often doing their day job. As mentioned by Abecedare as well, one does not AFAICT see negative reviews on these sites. And the reviews are invariably followed by information about the availabilty and price of the book reviewed.- Zananiri (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zananiri (talk) PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES AND DON'T BE BIASED: one is ANWESHA SARKAR of Oneindia.in and the OTHER IS ANWESHA BOSE of 'the india fusion' at GOODREADS. Both reviewer's name is Anwesha and Oneindia.in is NOT A BLOG. It is a NEWS PORTAL. I have earlier also written when Green Cardomom had found out some link of Rashmi Singh wirh same father's name: hence father's occupation had to be incorporated from a pdf file source which has been deleted. AND IT IS DISTINCT AS WHEN ALL REVIEWS AND TILL NOW HAS UPHELD IT. In some source it is early- some source thi- some that.... so much so the notability of renowned newspaper too is doubted to delete her article from here. thing AND GOOD YOU BROUGHT HERE THE AMAR UJALA I wonder why it was deleted? So many summers rae being deleted. Moreover the Amar Ujala source cleary was putting this fact that she is in the capacity of renowned writer is a Social activist too. I have also nominated articles for deletion but when in Faaraz Kazi article sources have come up then what is there to question abt the sources- even if it is Shillong Times or Mumbai Mirror?02:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananyaprasad (talk • contribs)
And it wasn't THE SAME REPORTER OR CONTENT WRITER ACC TO YOU, THAT WAS AMRISHA SHARMA OF Oneindia.in You mean to say If Amitabh Bacchan is interviewed and his work reviewed again by the news channel, we will write them off? No. Because he is very well known an no one wld dare do this. Here you are doing so cause she is an author and authors in India ( except like Chetan Bhagat- whose marketing strategy is very strong) have a very pathetic profile as you might me knowing that so many died ignominiously in wait of their book to be reviewed like Premchand- their books were reviewed after their deaths cause Wiki wasn't at that time to make them known. For you 2-3 respectable comments are not enough and you have this feeling that this author is being treated very highly by all the nes portals so much so as they are favoring openly then why hadn't she deleted her spectralhues thing from Linkedin. C'mon dont be so negative all the time. It looks you want to wait for reviews all life.. and then say 'yes I was wrong' Ananyaprasad (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not the creator. Shivamsetu is the creator- this shows just to delete this article you can to any limits of misguiding the adminAnanyaprasad (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As mentioned by Abecedare as well, one does not AFAICT see negative reviews on these sites. And the reviews are invariably followed by information about the availabilty and price of the book reviewed." I went myself to check if this site http://indianfusion.aglasem.com/the-untold-story-of-arundhati-and-the-black-emperor-the-sluttish-time-rashmi-singh-book-review/ which has written its review on goodreads has put inthe details of the sale of Rashmi Singh's book- ANS- NO! Then i went here http://www.boldsky.com/insync/pulse/2013/untold-story-of-arundhati-black-emperor-035308.html ANS NO- NO INFO OF BOOKS OF HERS- SALE ETC. There is one review here http://www.spectralhues.com/book-world/2013/09/untold-story-arundhati-black-emperor-book-review/ but I HAVE NOT PUT IN THIS CAUSE THIS REVIEW CAME AFTER SHE BECAME THEIR COLUMNIST! (and only good at this work can become one) AND HERE ALSO SHE DID NOT GET 4 0R 5 STARS! NEXT NEGATIVE REVIEWS- BOOKCHUM hv done done reviews of her books and interviewed also Rashmi Singh but their reviews of her latest 2 books have not been so welcoming on this site though they are selling her books but still have criticized. Now if you see a negative review, then you'll say OMG! A NEGATIVE REVIEW??!!?? Why then on wiki?? POSITIVE: huh! All positive!! Critics work is to praise/criticize. Take it positively. Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do know whose name appears as the creator of this article and should indeed have said the creator of this section of the article . Minor slip. I appreciate that you are an avid fan of the subject, but please do note that capitalising whole sentences to stress your views is considered shouting. - Zananiri (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not fan. First time the article was created by me. Again you got your facts wrong. And what is wrong reporting called VANDALISM? Ananyaprasad (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now this a very reliable source has come up http://epaper.newindianexpress.com/179739/The-New-Indian-Express-Bhubaneswar/01.11.2013#page/17/2 Ananyaprasad (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 08:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Point (artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails basic notability checks. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 23:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. 02:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)///EuroCarGT

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' Nothing out there is useful, GNews results point back to the Wikipedia article, textbook WP:NMUSIC failure. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsidering per sources posted by NTS. Have Google set at google.de, hence the lost results. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 10:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles about this artists have been deleted many times per A7 and G11 (see Black Point (rapper), Black Point (singer) and Black Jonas Point) and although I don't remember the earlier versions clearly I don't think there is any notability at all shown in this version either. I suspect that it was created by a sock and could be deleted for that reason, but maybe it's better to have it go through AfD for the future. --bonadea contributions talk 06:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have nothing to add to those who have gone before me. Fails WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle 08:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not familiar enough with WP:NMUSIC to vote here - but those saying that there are no GNews results are wrong. Here are some sources: Hoy magazine, Hispanic Business, drjays. I did find a bunch of others on Google News for his song "Watagatapitusberry", here: GNews but most are behind a paywall or Spanish... Nik thestunned 09:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Who said there were no GNEWS hits? Yes, there are some , but as the comment said, there are none of substance. reddogsix (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of them specifically states that he's released a charting single - that surely meets point 2 of the NMUSIC guidelines? I've updated the article accordingly anyways (and removed most nonsense). Apologies for the wording in the previous though, it wasn't the best way to word it. Nik thestunned 15:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I say keep per the above anyways. Nik thestunned 08:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes criteria #2 of WP:MUSBIO by having a hit single verifiable by Billboard magazine. Barnstar to Nikthestunned for following WP:HEY. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Watagatapitusberry. It's a pitbull song and black point was just a guest on it. No other notability. Lack of independent coverage about black point. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Watagatapitusberry per Duffbeerforme's argument. The artist in question is merely featured in the song. While the song would justifiably cause an artist to pass WP:MUSICBIO, the artist that it would apply to would be Pitbull (whose notability is neither questioned in general or here specifically). There's enough here to justify a redirect as my first choice rather than delete, but not enough to establish notability of the artist here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Technically, if the musician has produced a charting single, it does meet point 2 of the WP:MUSIC guidelines.

As a brief note, I have not done any research into this artist's specific case. Shrillpicc100 (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album per above discussion. Not independently notable per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, on a purely technical basis this artist meets, just barely, point #2 of WP:MUSIC by having a minor hit on the US Billboard Latin Songs chart. I do feel that that notability criteria could do with some tightening on this point though - I think conferring notability based on a minor hit on a niche chart isn't really within the spirit of the guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ultra Monsters. Unfortunately there were not so many votes forthcoming, however, there is consensus that the article should not be kept. We are choosing between merge and redirect. There is not a single source in the article, and unsourced information should not be added to Wikipedia. Therefore I close this nomination as redirect. However, the history remains available, and whoever wants to merge it with simultaneously sourcing the info, is welcome to do this.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eleking[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultra Seven through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ultra Seven. buff bills 7701 02:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on my talk page, it would be best if this is left open for another week. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultra Monsters (or, possibly, Ultra Seven, but he appears in multiple other shows, which makes Ultra Monsters more appropriate). Not independently notable. Deletion is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestral domain[edit]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lands_inhabited_by_indigenous_peoples for discussion. Alixos (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:ESSAY on a very limited subtopic of the topic that the article's title purports the article to be about. Meanwhile, the overall topic is already covered at Indigenous land rights. After a discussion I had with this article's author under a merger proposal I'd placed at Talk:Lands inhabited by indigenous peoples (before I realized that this article was the ideal destination), I was left not understanding why this particular restricted set of details should be under a separate article, let alone such a generally named one. So I've merged nearly all the content from this article into Indigenous land rights, creating sections on ILO efforts, Indonesia, and the Philippines, in preparation for this deletion request. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without prejudice toward future decisions. This is a premature AfD. This article was recently created by a new Wikipedia contributor, with expertise in this topic area. To whatever (small) degree there might be concerns about complying with Wikipdia's content policices, there is no reason to believe the article's author couldn't be engaged to change the article accordingly. The "merge" referenced in the nomination was conducted in a way that violates the original author's copyright, and has since been reverted by me. -Pete (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-covered by secondary sources, — Cirt (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Afd is not cleanup. James500 (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this appears to be a separate concept from Lands inhabited by indigenous peoples and the concept seems encyclopedic. SchreiberBike talk 03:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is a bit of overlap with Indigenous rights, and other articles, however aboriginal title also overlaps. The term ancestral domain is real in a few jurisdictions, has meaning that extends beyond legal rights. The content is encyclopedic. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure what the nominator did or is proposing with a merger. Is "ancestral domain" some legal term, technical term, or official designation? If so, then it probably deserves its own article. Certainly this article seems to meet notability criteria. Merging is something different - that happens with discussion on talk pages. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dials[edit]

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

No notability shown for this band - no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:GNG Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (converse) @ 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (banter) @ 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly weak keep. Coverage from Shindig, BBC, and Allmusic already linked in the article. There are more reviews indicated on the band's website from Q, Uncut, etc., which I couldn't confirm from a Google search. Quite a bit of airplay on BBC radio. --Michig (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic pantheism[edit]

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

No reliable sources have been provided for over a year, since the article was tagged. The apparent sources given are two references that relate to pantheism generally as well as Wikipedia, Facebook and YouTube links (the last of which was removed by other editors). In particular there is a statement in the Background section, "the one piece of evidence we have is of an online group on a social networking site which openly voices that they are Islamic pantheists", suggesting that it is a un-notable topic for Wikipedia. Green Giant (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced original essay presenting a novel interpretation of philosophy. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term "Islamic pantheism" gets a handful of hits in not-very-prominent scholarly works (for example, M. J. Sahlani's "In the Name of God: Sufi’ism, a Transcendental Pantheism and the Mystery of Mysticism in Persian Poetry" and Muhammad al-Muhammady's "Iqbal and the Malay World"), but these are just isolated turns of phrase rather than an established concept, and certainly have nothing to do with a movement supposedly established in 2010. —Neil 12:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 08:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Šmihula[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for WP:Academic Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has written some books and papers but they have not attracted enough cites to pass WP:Prof#C1 yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep it. see: https://www.google.be/?gws_rd=cr&ei=SRhdUpDJMpSa1AWc14DIBQ#q=Daniel+Smihula&start=10

and http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/866578_irq-iraq-middle-east-.html Aster554 (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC) He is known also outside his country: http://nielsposthumusdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/financiele-lente-is-nog-ver-weg2.pdf Aster554 (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC) He is cited more (and wrote more) than its i recorded in the article abou him. E.g.: http://www.politickevedy.fpvmv.umb.sk/userfiles/file/2_2012/macejak%281%29.pdf but above all in his country and in the Czech Republic. Aster554 (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seems that some group of economists regards his ideas as interesting:http://www.em-economics.com/2013/09/09/kondratieff-wave/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/138582319/Can-Innovation-Solve-the-Economic-Crisis Aster554 (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)— Aster554 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. This article has existed since 2008 without any problems. Several people worked on it. (View History) Your methods are discriminating for small countries, their culture and science. You would have to erase majority articles about people from small countries who write mostly in their own language. Trisw (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D. Smihula is a notable Slovak personality - he is a well-known columnist and author of about 400 articles in newspapers in 1991-2013 (Sme, Pravda) For example: http://www.eurotopics.net/en/home/autorenindex/autor_smihula_daniel/ or http://www.parlamentnykurier.sk/kur198a199-11/79.pdf Trisw (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC) He is also on of "public faces of Mensa" in Slovakia http://hn.hnonline.sk/hn-pre-vas-821/prilis-myslim-teda-som-mam-iq-nad-130-357398 and https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zn%C3%A1m%C3%AD_%C4%8Dlenov%C3%A9_Mensy Trisw (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: please be aware that I carefully considered the matter of discrimination against smaller countries and people who come from them and write in languages that are not widely understood before nominating this article for deletion. My personal inclination is to be less exacting for articles about such people than for those who come from large English-speaking nations. I'm happy to be convinced of the notability of the subject, but I don't yet see it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The view that articles from cultures outside the English-speaking part of the world deserve special consideration is not supported by policy and has always been repudiated here. There is no affirmative action in the English Wikipedia. Your nomination remains valid. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with all you say. Nevertheless, I personally think twice before proposing deletion of an article where notability may be hard to demonstrate because of systemic bias rather than because it is truly lacking. I did so here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does exist any problem with a memory in wikipedia? Such a policy kills a liberal character of the wikipedia. Aster554 (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view. We do not keep articles or delete them based on political criteria. We keep or delete them based on the notability of the subject, and this subject is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. His ideas are regarded as interesting for some economists:

http://lewyland.blogspot.be/2011/10/kondratieff-waves-crashed-western.html http://www.em-economics.com/2013/09/09/kondratieff-wave/ http://extension.psu.edu/community/ecd/news/2013/making-something-out-of-nothing http://sh.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:600462/FULLTEXT01 http://www.bestthinking.com/articles/energy/obtaining-inexhaustible-clean-energy-by-parametric-resonance-under-nonlocality-clocking http://www.scribd.com/doc/138582319/Can-Innovation-Solve-the-Economic-Crisis

http://www.copia-oculta.org/2012/09/crisis-economica-mundial-siglo-xxi.html http://www.ssa-rss.ru/files/File/KomitetyROS/SystemSociology/Fibonacci_Numbers.pdf — Trisw (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck second "keep" !vote from Trisw. Agricola44 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Seems to be almost no secondary WP:RS – almost all the references are actually written by the subject. WolrdCat search indicates the sum total of his books are held by <20 institutions. These are deal-breakers for a BLP. Agricola44 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Kuchera[edit]

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

I was about to PROD this article because I believe it uncontroversially fails to meet notability guidelines, but noticed this in its history:

PROD'ed on July 16th, reason: "Orphaned page with no content, describing a person not meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines."

De-PROD'ed 10 days later by @GiantSnowman:: "remove PROD - no rationale provided"

IMO it should've been deleted as an expired PROD then, not de-PROD'ed, but what's done is done and I have to send it through AfD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:07, 14 October 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) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is clearly in bad shape, nearly non-existent, but.... I think a case for notability exists. It's hard to look for sources since Ben himself is a reliable source and clutters the search results. I threw -"By Ben Kuchera" on the searches to help filter things out. He's discussed by many of other RS's, generally in response to opinions he has expressed about various aspects of the video gaming industry. Cited several times in the Book and Scholar searches. I might call it a very weak keep? He's definitely discussed, but it's more his opinions than him directly. -- ferret (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small additional comment on the PROD... When GiantSnowman dePROD'd, the PROD template did not have a concern filled in. While there was an edit note by the editor that tagged, the template itself was lacking a rationale. -- ferret (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"He's definitely discussed, but it's more his opinions than him directly." - That might make him a reliable source, but reliable source =/= notable subject. I welcome any sources about the subject that shows significant, independant coverage from a reliable source that could be used as a foundation of an article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, which is why I voice it as a very weak. I'm going to do some more digging, but here's a decent piece discussing him as he left Arstechnica for Penny Arcade. [39] And here is a similar take from Joystiq that discusses him directly [40]. I'll see if I can find anything unrelated to the move from Ars to PA though. -- ferret (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A criticism piece by Hardcoregamer (Reliable source according to VG/S).[41]. -- ferret (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with User:Ferret. Not great sources but enough to show influence and notable opinion maker. The stub is a feature, rather than the typical unsourced puffery about his cat's name and hobbies. There are secondary sources to confirm the current article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment - An article about the same subject and with practically exactly the same content was previously speedily deleted per CSD A7. ^{(See here)} ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The amount or sameness of content isn't really relevant. Whether or not notability has changed in the 5+ years since that CSD is though. In addition to the sources I had above, here's an interview by Gamertag Radio, which I took to WP:VG/S for an opinion earlier the week. It probably falls under WP:SPS, but all the same: [42] -- ferret (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not enough to have an article topic briefly mention in reliable sources - there needs to be significant coverage of the subject itself. Some brief mentions in regards to game reviews doesn't seem to qualify. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that's what he's known for is video game news and reviews. His name is the equivalent of Roger Ebert for the video game industry - just that the video game industry does not have the mainstream press exposure to make these more household names as film critics get. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widely known among non-reliable sources does not equal significant coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I provided three reliable sources in this AFD. -- ferret (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Sourcing appropriate for VG show he's a notable journalist. It would be nice if there was more but what's there is sufficient to presume notability for now. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep from nominator - At this point and with the presented sources I agree there is enough to show that notability is likely; plenty of work to be done to integrate these sources into the article however, obviously. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Salvidrim, I guess you if mean to withdraw, write Withdraw up top below the original nomination. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 2nd nomination created in error possibly. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 08:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Celebrity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND although two members have articles, Gibson's is tenuous. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD is not a venue to establish whether lower Chinese leagues are fully pro. This is the right venue. I take it that at this point, the fully professional status of these leagues is not established, and delete the articles. If at any future point the fully pro status has been established, please contact me or any other administrator for undeletion of these articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Zijie[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the top three flights of Chinese football are pro. He has not played in the top flight, and the claim that the second and third flights are fully pro is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - We are bound by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, and that says that only the Chinese Super League is fully pro. Therefore this fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-WP:NFOOTBALL's reference, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, is an incomplete list. Taking China League One as an example. According to Regulations of China League One (The official program of 2013 China League One, Page 8):
- Chapter 1 Section 1: 中国足球协会甲级联赛是由国内职业足球俱乐部参加的除中超联赛外，全国高水平的职业足球联赛……(China League One is the second highest professional football league division (after Chinese Super League) for professional football club in the country…)
- Chapter 1 Section 2: …中国足球协会职业联赛理事会在中国足球协会的领导和授权下管理中甲联赛… (…China League One is administered by Chinese Football Association Professional League Council under the leadership and authority of Chinese Football Association).

China League One is a league played by professional football club and administered by professional League Council. If it is not fully professional league, then what's the standard of "fully professional league"? --Alexchen4836 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - China League One is the second tier of Chinese professional league system, consists of professional football clubs. (China League One Official Site) --Asaikana (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep all~~ - It appears that a reliable source has been found to indicate that more than just the top league are fully professional. If the formal regulations of the league call it professional I am prepared to accept it as an FPL unless someone can provide contradictory but reliable sources that it is not "fully" professional. Fenix down (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, delete Li Shuai and Pan Weiye keep the others, the sources provided only seem to apply to League one and these two do not appear to have played there yet, onlt League two. Fenix down (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Asaikana: @Fenix down: - have a read of WT:FPL. There is no independent, reliable source which verifies these leagues as fully-professional. The league describing itself as professional is not sufficient. Giant Snowman 17:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @GiantSnowman:, you may then wish have a look at the sources already used for a number of the leagues cited on the FPL page. The following references all point to pages or documents published by the league or national football federation governing the league deemed to be FPL: 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 13, 17, 23, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 50, 53, 54, 71, 73, 74, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 102, 160, 161, 162 and 163. It actually seems that there is consensus that a league or national FA declaring a league to be professional is sufficient. We seem either to have a problem with the two sources here, or a problem with the FPL list. Fenix down (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion is dominated by the author of the article, why essentially puts forward the argument that it is currently difficult to determine whether the language has a potential to become notable. This argument has been raised before on many occasions, and the answer to it is WP:CRYSTAL. Other participants of the discussion argue that the article fails WP:N since no reliable sources describe its subject.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free Greek language[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There is no indication that this conlang meets the notability requirements at WP:GNG. All of the external links are from a source closely associated with the subject; there are no independent sources at all. The lengthy diatribe on the talk page, which begins, "Thank you ANGR for giving me the prompt to explain why this article is truly notable", does not explain in the slightest why the conlang is notable at all. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that the topic satisfies general notability; indeed, there is fairly clear indication that it does not. Per the page, the constructed language is "used only by its maker". All of the sources listed are self-published (via academia.edu) papers by the language's creator. 888gowinda's crystal ball foresees that the language will be widespread among the Greek diaspora, but future events cannot be verified with currently available resources. Cnilep (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "used only by its maker" refers to active use until now, but lots of people already use it by reading and understanding texts in it, that is passive usage if we can call it so. Also, people who have seen texts in it say it is similar to the Greek language as used by those who learn Greek without knowing the grammar. Of course, it is natural for a new language to have few active users, especially if some people do everything to bury it e.g. by not allowing it to appear in Wikipedia. If you know what you r reading, there IS NOWHERE (except in your own estimates) ANY PREDICTION about any future usage; there is only description of usefulness, not only by the diaspora; there are many people of non Greek origin who want to learn Greek for many reasons, e.g. lots of immigrants, people related to Greeks, or simply those who love the Greek language or culture and want to access it. What we currently have, and that cannot change, is that an artificial and extremely difficult language, QAThARÉWUSA, has dominated all aspects of life in Greece; this does not consist a prediction, but it surely shows how EASY it is for the Free Greek Language to be widespread, IF support comes to overcome the opposition. When i m entangled in this dialog, i feel there is so strong bias against Greek language, since there are so many English based controlled languages as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_natural_language and all of them are not used in real life, but all of them are conspicuous in Wikipedia, and some of them have become Wikipedia languages too, not because they all were important, but because Wikipedia and some other influencial institutions made them to pose as important. That bias is what proves (in the present, not in the future) that the FreeGreek is really important, that is why some people are already afraid of it.

All the artificial and controlled languages have one creator; this means they all started from one person. And some are practically in fluent use by one only person still; in toki pona active speakers are "3 said to be fluent (2007), and Several dozen with internet chat ability". But as for FreeGreek, all Greeks can use it fluently, or at least all Greeks can chat in it, because it only takes 10 minutes to learn it, if one knows the Greek vocabulary (that is, all Greeks). To see the attitudes to FreeGreek, search the web with "Ελεύθερο Ελληνικό Γλώσσα", and you will find that only 1 or 2 mock it, and that without arguments, only because they think simplicity is poverty (in terms of grammatical possibilities, it is no poverty); you will not find anyone who finds it hard to understand or even speak it. If you delete it, i will find 2 friends who can present themselves so we can say we are 3 fluent speakers so we have the right to put it again on Wikipedia on equal rights with Toki Pona. In fact it is not really equal rights: Toki Pona can never be used internationally, as it is already stated on its page: there is no such purpose. While FreeGreek not only can be used, but it also NOTABLE, because it CAN save the Greek language (surely i cannot say if it WILL), if the bias can be overcome. And yes, at least one friend of mine and myself actively use the FreeGreek language with a person new to Greece, who usually does not understand ordinary Greek but understands FreeGreek. So, if it is deleted, we shall put it back on. By the way, the Systematic language, which is really a constructed one, although it is too new to have a number of fluent speakers, is better than all other conlangs, so it deserves to be on Wikipedia, and then it has a CHANCE to make real friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 888gowinda (talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some details, the first publications about FreeGreek were on www.sch.gr (the Greek schools network); then a number of literary works (mainly story telling) appeared on www.stixoi.info (a site to upload poetry or even prose, were readers comments are enabled): the readers' comment were very positive here, except for a man who said that authorization of FreeGreek will make the ordinary Greek extinct! this is in some way showing that FreeGreek can have much appeal. Then, there were a few publications (in English) on http://elewthero.livejournal.com and after that on http://academia.edu. It seems i ought to explain these in the main article, because this omission has created some misunderstandings. All right, i will add this information on the main article.

I apologize if i talked angrily here: it is true i had to improve the article, and i improved it as i could so far, but the deletion template gave me a shock that made me behave less polite than i use to. Yes, more things ought to be done for FreeGreek, and the article ought to be corrected, but not deleted. Now excuse me, i m going to upload another diatribe written in FreeGreek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 888gowinda (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is some indication that the language is notable. Has it been in the news? Has anyone heard of it apart from adverts by its creator or users? — kwami (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kwamikagami, i have tried to answer that in the section "Creation of FreeGreek and first reactions" of the main article. Of course, apart from these, there are indeed many people who know of it because they found it on the web or from oral communication; for example, even yesterday i uploaded a text here http://www.stixoi.info/stixoi.php?info=Poems&act=details&poem_id=212368 and has already attracted comments, but i cannot cite everyone who says something about the FreeGreek in a web comment or orally. That lady (mother of the girl who has christened my daughter) who is currently living in the U.S. of America and teaching Greek and coordinating some teachers of Greece, she has said that indeed Greek language has practically died in the diaspora (America, Australia, etc., well, this is a common opinion of all those who know the diaspora, but then she has said that the government is not likely to officialize it because it goes too far with simplification. (in my opinion, this is positive, because this is the purpose: to simplify the Greek language as much as possible). Another lady teacher, seeing a sample, said "it reminds of how immigrants talk when they know very little of Greek grammar". Of mocking comments, i have found only one as yet, on the internet, and even that i find positive, because it proves that it is so easy for a Greek to imitate the FreeGreek language even in mockery. Mocking comments could have been many, but i know only ONE such, obviously because Greeks understand that such a simplified language is useful because ordinary Greek language is getting lost because of adherence to a difficult grammar. I think that i have described the situation honestly and thoroughly enough; if one wants written individual data, then one may search the web with Ελεύθερο Ελληνικό Γλώσσα, or Free Greek language, or FreeGreek; in the site http://www.stixoi.info/ there is also numbering of different users' views of the texts in FreeGreek, so these are numbers of people who surely know of it. Note still, that some things found previously on web search, are hard to find now, i refer especially to the one mocking comment, which i cannot find now on web search. Also, about two years ago, i saw a poster on walls advertising a theatrical play, with a slogan "εγώ κυνηγάει, εσύ μαζεύει" which is not exactly FreeGreek, but it is almost so (accurately, it should be "εγώ κυνηγάει, εσέ μαζεύει"), and i wonder whether it was just a coincidence or they deliberately imitated FreeGreek. TO SUM UP, FreeGreek is not short in number of people who KNOW OF IT and can use it; it only lacks support from authorities, at least until now. Debate attracts attention in this nation (Greeks), and if some debate could be aroused between important people, then FreeGreek could figure in the first pages of newspapers - which has not been seen yet, to be frank. And, another thing: nobody until now cared to make FreeGreek a "notable" issue; even the texts i have uploaded on my favorite site, i did so only because i preferred FreeGreek for its conciseness, and not to make it "notable". Since the issue of "notability" is raised, it is a bell ringing for making FreeGreek more public. 888gowinda (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, from what you say, Free Greek has simply not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This means that people other than you need to have published significant things about Free Greek in a reputable place. That's just how Wikipedia works. It doesn't matter if Free Greek deserves attention. Until it actually has attention then it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but I have to vote for deletion. garik (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" contains a number of terms not really explicit to me. As also "significant things" and "reputable place". Maybe we should also say "important people have published etc.". I know it has attracted attention of a respectable number of people, but what sort of attention, what people, and in what place, these things are not clear to me. Of course, "attention" would require some proof, what could that be?. The attention should be positive, or even negative attitudes of people could also serve? Maybe if there were a forum with comments specifically on the language, would it consist enough attention? Since you are at it, can you explain to me in what ways for example Latino Sine Flexione and Toki Pona or other controlled languages (for some of them no article written yet, but it is expressly welcome) were more notable before entering Wikipedia? For example, "Common Logic Controlled English"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 888gowinda (talk • contribs) 13:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of Wikipedia pages that explain what these terms mean. WP:Notability explains the general requirements, giving definitions of "significant coverage", "reliable", and "source". WP:Identifying reliable sources describes what is classed as a reliable source. Forums and social networking websites aren't reliable sources, and blogs are only allowed if they are by experts or part of properly-edited publications. Latino sine flexione is notable because it has been discussed in books on Peano and Leibniz and in publications on constructed languages. Negative attitudes are just as good as positive: ideally we would want a balanced view which would include explanations of both merits and flaws, as long as they came from reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

these are interesting notes, but still subjectivity finds its place in the matter. As for a number of other controlled or constructed languages that have been considered notable, it is up to every person to judge. By the way, see the comments at the talk page of Lingua_sistemfrater. I wonder, is there some voting function? for people to simply cast a yes or no vote and then simply count the votes to settle the matter; that would be democratic. Perhaps more expert Wikipedia users can suggest places on the web, or "wiki"s more suitable for such an article than here. Suggestions welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 888gowinda (talk • contribs) 12:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Lingua sistemfrater deserves to be there though I've not done a detailed search for references. Whether an article exists or not is decided by reference to Wikipedia policy, not by voting. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The conlang wikia might be a better place for discussing Free Greek and other constructed languages; there are also many other websites about constructed languages. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely my knowledge (and time) seems to be insufficient to make it widespread enough and in the right places until now. So, at present, i may cite some proverbs in FreeGreek (Phonemic writing) "ÉKhI MAKhÉRI, TRÓJI PEPÓNI" (the person who has the knife, is the one who eats the melon), and also "JA QÁThE QLIDARJÁ IPÁRKhI QLIDÍ" (for every lock there is a key).

I think of coming back with a list of languages that found their way into Wikipedia and seem much less notable than FreeGreek.888gowinda (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't, see WP:WAX. -- 101.119.14.175 (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. This constructed language completely fails WP:GNG, with no mentions at all in news, books, or Google Scholar. Even independent unreliable sources seem nonexistent. -- 101.119.14.175 (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to destroy is always easy, at least much easier than creating and preserving; the same can be said of deleting. Still there are things to be explained. The term "made up" is not fitting in this place, as that controlled language has already been published on the web in the beginning of 2008, and since then a respectable number of texts were created, most of them published too; that the texts and the language attracted attention, is obvious by the number of viewers on the posts, especially on the Greek poetry and literature site, for example http://www.stixoi.info/stixoi.php?info=Poems&act=details&poem_id=176006 was read by 239 people, and received very affectionate comments too. If you think it useful, i can search on that site for a good number of texts like that, with number of viewers and comments. You must read Greek to be able to estimate those.

Now, it seems that statements from important people are wanted. But "important" people are often really unimportant and vice versa. You know that all that glitters is not gold, and all that does not glitter is not charcoal. Anyway, there have been some "important" people who have taken notice of FreeGreek, but they chose not to publicize the matter, i can cite the "society for the promotion of Greek language". That they did not put it in the news (newspapers etc.) is not because they did not take notice of it; we can think of their reasons: many people take pride exactly in the complexity of Greek grammar, and have it as a job to teach that complexity, or to organize and upkeep that whole system of complexity. "Job is good", right?

But even so, if you are patient, some notable scholarly publications will see the light. Also, many comments and views will appear on youtube, since some of you consider it an important criterion for keeping an article on Wikipedia.

If we talk books, who would print a FreeGreek book here? people hardly read any books in Greece, and especially books of academic interest. A publishing house would not make money from such a book.

As to Google Scholar, thank you for letting me know of it. I didn't know what that is until yesterday when you mentioned it. By the way, i searched for the name of the author of FreeGreek in Google Scholar, and i found, rather unexpectedly, one publication, but on a different subject.

To be sincere to each other, do not think it is hard to make a publication in a newspaper, as the one that appears in the toki pona article: a girl made a language during a melancholic afternoon, and the whole Canada is talking about it, and now the President of Canada will not use any rubber seal other than one with the toki pona symbol. To be serious, that is ARTIFICIAL notability, created to save the toki pona article from deletion.

It would be more notable to upload an article about the toy boats we made as kids from a piece of pine tree bark rubbed on a rock. Because we called the pine tree bark piece boats PITÍQA, that is a name from ancient PITUS (pine tree). The point is that a handful of people loved that toy which is called toki pona, and thought they can use it as a language, the same way as a PITÍQA can be used to cross the ocean; that is why they created a number of lessons on a website to show "links", and somehow they arranged for a newspaper article to have another link, and some other links which do not work if they ever did (now they fetch nothing), and one other link where indeed toki pona takes a part together with other languages. I do not say these just to accuse other articles; rather, i cite that to show that it was really easy to create such an artificial notability, and real publicity too, for the Free Greek Language; yet the author did not even wish his name to appear in the language infobox.

You see, in Greece olive oil is usually sold in tins of 5 kilos (of 10 kilos were popular in earlier times); if such a tin is empty, it makes very loud noise when beaten; but if it is full, it hardly sounds. Hence the metaphorical expression "ÁDJOS DDENEKÉS" (empty oil-tin).

And i will say once more, i do not wish to accuse other articles in order to save mine. My attitude is not to delete articles, just as God, or nature if you prefer, does not destroy the ants and the other small creatures, even those too small to be visible. The big animals are more impressive, but nature does not consider the small ones less important; nature does not make the unimpressive vanish.

Some times articles on unimportant things showed to be useful: if it were not for the WP article i (and MANY others) would never know of toki pona, and although i find it disgusting from all aspects, it gave me the impetus to start materializing the Systematic language (which you may see on WP if you r not against it); even the lingua Sistemfrater, although it is anything but notable, was also useful in showing that even a Vietnamese scholar in 1957 used no other source than Latin and Greek for his proposed international language. I mean that articles that many consider to delete (e.g. toki pona and Lingua Sistemfrater, indeed people proposed deletion and still some believe those should be deleted) some times are useful for the WP readers.

But i must explain some more things: it was NOT my intention to make a Wikipedia article on Free Greek Language; i simply put it in the Wikipedia list of controlled languages. Then some clever person deleted it from the list, saying that if it is not in a Wikipedia article, it cannot be in the list! That is why i upload this FreeGreek article, so that it can be in the list as is fair. But then the same kind of person wanted to delete the article too. If i add some comments to show that it is notable in some way, they will observe that the Prime Minister said nothing about it in public, therefore it is not notable enough. And if the Prime Minister referred to it, they will notice that there is no available and demonstrably genuine recording of that speech of the Prime Minister. This is in fact bias disguised as lawfulness. Every lawyer knows how to uphold both opposite cases, and still he is a lawful lawyer. I m made to appear the one who does not respect WP rules, AND EXACTLY THIS IS what makes the Free Greek Language article truly notable: that people try to give it a bad name and hang it.

While it is illegal to talk about the list of controlled languages that appear in red letters, meaning that there is no article about them in WP, but they are deserving to be on WP - there was not even one person available to write even a stub about those languages, but still they are notable.

Why are you people afraid of that FreeGreek article? Is it telling lies that can denigrate the renowned WP objectivity? If it is "meager", people will not notice it and will not add to it, as they do with other conlangs. But if it is worthy, you let your envy out by attacking a good thing.

If you still want to delete it, then go delete it, and if you want to keep that deletion template on top of it, then keep it; as for me, i have explained why deletion or keeping that template does not shame the article, it is for the article's pride.888gowinda (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charodi Samaj[edit]

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

The topic is pretty unverifiable. Google gives only 3 hits ([43]). Vanjagenije (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable. Few of the search results come which with word Charodi are some blogs and facebook pages. Nothing about Charodi Samaj. Note: it is not to be confused with Chharodi which is a town in Gujarat.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 05:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhtar Isah Bala[edit]

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

Non-notable person, made by the subject. PROD denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails WP:BIO. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Probably a vanity piece. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Selective appropriations legislation strategy during United States federal government shutdown of 2013. The overall consensus in this discussion is that these individual pieces of legislation do not have enough notability on their own, but instead have notability as a part of the overall Republican strategy of selective appropriations legislation (this point has been argued well below). This stands to reason given that during the tenure of the shutdown the vast majority of coverage in this regard was done on the entire strategy of selective legislation. Therefore, I can safely assume that there are a myriad of sources giving the required notability to such an article. The only issue that may present itself here is in the new article remaining neutral, which it seems is an issue with the current individual articles. So I would only ask that editors working on the combination of these bills, ensure that they are doing so in accordance with WP:POV. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Head Start Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res. 84; 113th Congress)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Head Start Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res. 84; 113th Congress)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Existence of a bill, or even passage in one house, does not mean notability. Minor WP:NEWS coverage relates to the United States federal government shutdown of 2013, where information is already covered, not to bills specifically, nor is is anything beyond standard news of Congressional activity. WP is not GovTrack, OpenCongress, or a WP:DIRECTORY of the countless bills that are introduced. Significant text is copied-and-pasted from the Congressional Research Service and duplicated across the articles, as is general information about the shutdown and procedures that is duplicated from the main article. This has little reference to, and no evidence of notability of, the individual bills. Reywas92^Talk 06:57, 12 October 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 October 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DC CR. Even if the other bills do not have enough notability, this one regarding the District of Columbia local government funding has been covered in both the Washington Times and the Washington Post because of the split within the Democratic party over it. Democrats DC mayor Vincent C. Gray and DC representative Eleanor Holmes Norton have publicly appealed to Harry Reid and Barack Obama to pass this bill into law to ensure that funding for the DC local government continues. Otherwise there will be major problems with trash pickup, education of children by charter schools, etc.. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or~~ merge The issue with duplication of material can be fixed and doesn't impact deletion. The fact that these bills did pass a house of Congress is a significant factor supporting their notability. In addition, all of the articles currently cite at least two independent sources in their "Debate and discussion" sections, except for Head Start, Food and Drug Administration and Veterans Benefits, which have one. The National Parks one in particular has a fairly large discussion section. These sections could certainly be expanded, and the identical "Background" sections should be condensed, but these issues warrant improvement rather than deletion. If consensus does not support keeping these as separate articles, then I would support a merge to an article discussing all bills in this category, possibly entitled something like October 2013 continuing resolutions. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Edit: Now that the government shutdown has been resolved through other legislation, these bills have been effectively superseded. I think that the bills together are notable enough to be kept as a merged article. It's worth noting that one bill in this category, the Department of Defense Survivor Benefits Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (which does not currently have its own article) was in fact enacted. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added five more sources to the Head Start bill, including information about Indian Head Start programs and a recent private $10 million donation to keep Head Start programs open in six states (a donation that would not be required if this bill has passed, which is why it is relevant). Regarding the background sections, I'm happy to see them improved, if anyone can think of ways to do so. I was trying to operate on the notion that some people will only read one of the articles (or will read them in different orders), so "repeat" information isn't necessarily repeated for readers, just for those of us comparing multiple articles. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hundreds of bills are passed each year by at least one house of Congress. Enactment is better, but proposal or passage in one house absolutely does not confer notability. These sources are routine coverage of Washington, not an indication of notability or impact. Most of that discussion section covers the National Parks shutdown, not the bill itself, with the fourth paragraph and most of the third being entirely irrelevant to the bill. Reywas92^Talk 10:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Head Start bill, which is the official topic of the AFD doesn't mention the national parks at all, so I'm not sure which one you are talking about. HistoricMN44 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've gone ahead and condensed the background sections. Wikipedia tends to treat articles as parts of an interconnected web rather than stand-alone documents. Because it's easy to click a link to get more information about an unfamiliar topic (and also for maintainability reasons), it's discouraged to repeat the same text in multiple articles. It's just a style thing that's uniform across all of Wikipedia. (Also, this discussion is about all nine of the listed articles equally; Head Start was just arbitrarily chosen as the first item in the list, and thus ended up in the discussion title.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Cool! It does look better. I didn't know that about the aversion to repeated text - I guess it does make sense as long as all of the right links are there. As far as I'm concerned, this process of improving articles is exactly what should be happening, not deleting them. :) HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These bills are an important piece of the story of the ongoing government shutdown. The fact that some Democrats are voting for each of them indicates a split, a cleavage in Democratic solidarity on how to treat the shutdown. That's news. The bills have also only been in existence for two weeks and the shutdown isn't over yet. It would be silly to delete one of the articles today only to have the bill pass in a day or two. Readers also have the right to know the specifics of what's in each of these appropriations bills. One of the great things about Wikipedia is the hyperlink system so readers can find out what the major programs and departments that would be funded actually do - just by clicking on a blue link! Yes, the articles do need expansion, but two weeks in, with no end in sight for the shutdown, it's premature to delete articles about bills heavily tied up in this situation. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree with the need for expansion and inclusion of more independent sources, this discussion seems to illustrate the limits of using independent sources alone as a proxy for notability. The trend in consumption of current events is away from intermediation (i.e. news reports) and toward direct consumption of information from primary sources. If people go directly to source documents that reflect significant developments rather than consuming "news" stories about them, surely that does not mean that those events are less notable or significant. Time will tell if these bills, which are part of a highly contentious, ongoing public debate, each deserve their own article, but it seems quite premature and unconsidered to delete them now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimHarperDC (talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it when I forget to sign! JimHarperDC (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Every session, there are close to a thousand bills that pass one body of Congress and never get enacted into law. I could understand merging these and having an article for the mini-CR bills/strategy. They are really only notable as a group, which is typically how they are discussed in sources. There is no chance of these being enacted into law, so that greatly diminishes their notability. - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I have to disagree, for several reasons. First, the fact that a thousand bills pass one chamber has no bearing on whether these particular bills are themselves notable. Second, I think this whole AFD violates at least two of the rules outlined in the nominating procedure. B2 (also D) indicates that a check for notability should be done, which clearly wasn't, considering the number of additional sources I've been able to find for each of these bills - sources that refer specifically and primarily to the bill in question, not just them as a collective. C2 suggests that if an article is new, which these are, additional time be given for editors to continue improving it. A notability tag or request for better sources or comments on the talk page would all have been better choices. Third, unless you are a fortune-teller or work in Obama's office, you can't be sure whether these bills will pass or not - no one can. Congress can be unpredictable - someone may cave under pressure, if not on all of them on some of them. If none of these bills are passed AND the shutdown has concluded, then it might be appropriate to discuss a merger of the bills into one article. Until them, I think it is most appropriate to keep and improve the articles individually. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - While you are technically correct that these bills could become law, no reliable source that I have seen suggests that this is a realistic possibility. All of the proposals that I have seen in the House or the Senate in the last few days - whether from Susan Collins, House Republican leadership, or others, involve reopening the entire government and raising the debt ceiling for some period of time with certain other provisions. The bills involved in this AfD are not part of that conversation and were more about political tactics - forcing Congressional Democrats to vote against re-opening popular programs - than they were a serious attempt to solve the current crisis.GabrielF (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see why the bills are individually notable. They are all part of one larger effort to fund certain popular parts of the government in order to relieve some of the pressure from the shutdown. In the media these bills are generally discussed as part of one effort, rather than individually. Readers who want to understand this particular effort must read through 9 closely-related and largely duplicative articles. While this is not necessarily a rationale for deletion, the "debate and discussion" sections of these articles are heavily biased towards the Republican point of view. The NIH bill has about 2 paragraphs on the Republican point of view and one sentence on the Democratic point of view. Many articles use the same quote from the National Review excoriating Harry Reid, but they don't bother to explain Reid's position. There's also some soapboxing: the FDA article says: "The [New York Times Editorial] board's opinion was that "the longer Congressional Republicans allow the shutdown to continue, the greater the danger of harm," ignoring H.J.Res. 77 as a possible way to address this issue." But the last part of the sentence is original synthesis. The NYT editorial says nothing about the continuing resolution. In fact, the NYT has been extremely hostile to the Republican tactics regarding the shutdown and specifically called the mini-CR's "self-serving"[44].GabrielF (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into United States federal government shutdown of 2013. The piecemeal-legislation strategy should be discussed as a whole there, not atomized. Neutrality^talk 19:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is already considered too long. So merging into it would be a problem. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be better to merge these into its own article, October 2013 mini-continuing resolutions. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all or Delete - The shutdown article is already very long. If information describing the details of all of these unsuccessful bills is to be kept, they should be merged into a single article describing them, as suggested by Antony-22. The shutdown is over, and none of these bills were that notable individually. Dezastru (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated above, the DC CR is notable because it caused a split in the Democratic party. Generally these articles are important because they provide evidence that the Republicans were NOT trying to shutdown the government, but rather to keep it open. A fact which the Democrats and their followers in the media have managed to largely obscure. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A biased political analysis does not make the bill notable. Trying to keep bits and pieces of the government open is not the same as keeping the government open. Regardless of who voted how, that was a failed bill with little independent notability. Reywas92^Talk 01:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - A more neutral way to put this would be that each party had different conditions for reopening the government. These bills were an important part of the Republican strategy and thus should be covered in a commensurate manner to the Democratic strategy. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legitimate daughter articles. James500 (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reywas92 has explained the problem with keeping all of these articles. Instead of arguing about them in the abstract, take a careful look, for example, at the actual text of two on the list: Federal Emergency Management Agency Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (which I will refer to as "FEMA") and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (or "SNAP"). FEMA is based on 9 references. The first 3 are for the three-paragraph background section, which has exactly the same text (or nearly so) for both FEMA and SNAP. The next 3 references are congressional records providing a summary of the provisions of the bill and housekeeping details (eg, "The Federal Emergency Management Agency Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 was introduced into the House on October 3, 2013 by Rep. John Carter (R-TX).[6] It was referred to the United States House Committee on Appropriations.[6] On October 4, 2013, the House voted in Roll Call Vote 522 to pass the bill 247-164.") There then is a reference for a statement that a Republican in the House said the bill is in the national interest, and one for a statement that most Democrats voted against it because they opposed mini-continuing resolutions. Finally there is a reference to an opinion article by a columnist blaming the Senate majority leader for blocking passage of the bill in the Senate.

Turning to the SNAP article. We see there are 10 references. The first 3 again are for the background section, 4 are for a congressional records summary of the provisions and for housekeeping details, 2 for statements about support from the House Republicans and opposition from the House Democrats, and 1 for an opinion article blaming the Senate majority leader for blocking passage of the bill in the Senate.

In other words, these are little more than boilerplate stub articles on subjects that do not have individual notability WP:SIGCOV. If the articles are individually notable, it should be easy to find additional sources on each of the subjects, demonstrating their notability. Dezastru (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of a daughter article does not have to be independently notable. We do not spin off daughter articles because their topics are notable. We spin them off because there is a 2MB absolute limit on the length of pages. This is a technical restriction due to the limitations of browsers. And I am told above that the main article is already too long (from that technical point of view).. James500 (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The topic of a daughter article does not have to be independently notable." WP:SPLIT says otherwise. See also WP:SIGCOV. Dezastru (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPLIT is neither a policy nor a guideline. My reading of the actual guidelines (article size, content forking, summary style and notability) is that a daughter article is part of the parent article for notability purposes because it is not a separate topic. James500 (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:SIGCOV IS in fact a guideline. Whereas, to my knowledge, "The topic of a daughter article does not have to be independently notable" is not from a policy or guideline. Dezastru (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if lack of notability can stop us from having a daughter article, this must inevitably result in content being removed (ie deleted or not added in the first place) from the parent article for reasons of length alone, which the "content removal" section of ARTICLESIZE says is not allowed.

I don't think that N prohibits a notable topic from having more than one article.

The purpose of GNG is to create a presumption of notability. It does not work in reverse. Topics that fail GNG are not presumed to be non-notable. Not that that is relevant to the argument that I advanced. James500 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - when does this matter actually get decided? The shutdown is over now (which it wasn't when this AFD started), so we know these bills won't be becoming law. However, they are still part of a Republican strategy for handling the shutdown, and there's clearly plenty of material for at least one article. If the consensus is to merge, I'd be happy to work on that, but I don't want to start doing that until this discussion has been closed. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this has been a super-long AfD. I'm not a regular here, but I'm not clear on why it's taking so long given that we seem to have ample community input. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vardges Ulubabyan, Hovik Jivanyan and Rudik Hyusnunts; delete all others.. Geo Swan's argument here is the most sound, and it would do me no good in repeating it. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Ohanyan[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

No evidence of notability; this is a return of a user who was warned about this before, attempting to create articles on members of the national assembly of Nagorno-Karabakh. The problem is that 1) they're entirely unsourced, but formatted in a way that implies they may be copyright violations, possibly from a government website; 2) they aren't inherently notable. Note that WP:POLITICIAN does not apply, since the "country" in question is not an internationally recognized state, and thus articles on these people can only exist under WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As BLPs, the articles certainly can't be kept if they remain unsourced. However, government websites (even those of unrecognised governments) are frequently distinctly permissive about allowing copying - so we should check the website for statements on copyright before assuming copyright violations. Also, WP:POLITICIAN does not say that it applies only to internationally-recognised states (or their subdivisions) - and, looking at the history of international recognition, it is probably as well that it does not. I (and I suspect others) would also tend to apply it to political entities with sufficient control of an area to operate as its government, recognised or not - and this applies to Nagorno-Karabakh. So, while I am not going to vote to keep in the absence of sources, I think there would be plausible grounds for notability if even primary reliable sources are found. PWilkinson (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN deems notable "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". If you recognise Nagorno-Karabakh as independent then its legislature is national, and if you don't then it is provincial. Either way, if verifiable, membership complies with WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever Nagorno-Karabaky is, the members of its assembly pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like some clarification from Phil Bridger and PWilkinson. Are you saying that if, for example, an organized militarized organization had de facto control over a region, then any high level members of the organization would automatically be notable per WP:POLITICIAN? So, for example, members of Boko Haram, which does has de facto control over large parts of a number of states, would be notable, so long as we could verify that they are at a high level in the organization? I've not heard such an assertion before, and it doesn't make sense to me, but I don't usually deal with this subject area, and so I would certainly accept that I was wrong (in being outside of standard site-wide consensus).

Also, another comment to PWilkinson--I'm not entirely certain, having not dealt too extensively in this field, but what I have found is that while that many national US websites are in the public domain, some are not, and most other countries I've found do keep their government websites copyrighted (or sometimes special variants that are semi-free but not compatible with CC-BY-SA). I believe that our copyright rules require that, absent clear evidence of public domain status, we must always presume that published material is copyrighted. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The legislation that puts the work of employees of the US Federal government in the public domain is old. I am not aware of any other country with comparable rules.
There are a few countries that are not signatories to International agreements on Intellectual Property. The works of citizens of one of those countries, when first published in one of those countries, and not simultaneously published elsewhere, is considered in the public domain in the rest of the World.

By definition unrecognized states can't sign International agreements. So, technically, if the works of all citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh is not protected by copyright, neither is the work of its government employees.

Up until about 2 years ago we considered Afghanistan one of those nations with no copyright protection. About 2 years ago we learned that the Hamid Karzai government had issued some statements about signing International intellectual property rights agreements, and we have been treating intellectual works from Afghanistan as if it was protected by copyright. Our lawyers have told us that we aren't legally obliged to do so. They have told us that we will only be obliged to do so when Afghanistan actually does sign those agreements.

Personally, I think starting to treat works of Afghans, first published in Afghanistan, as if they were protected by copyright -- prior to Afghanistan signing those agreements, was premature. Karzai's term is almost up, and the agreemnts aren't signed. Geo Swan (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination asserts "Note that WP:POLITICIAN does not apply, since the "country" in question is not an internationally recognized state, and thus articles on these people can only exist under WP:GNG. Sorry, this is nonsense.

First -- there are a handful of states, that aren't internationally recognized, yet are as real as other countries in just about all the ways that matter. So, not considering their legislators to qualify for POLITICIAN seems POINTY.

Second -- even if, for the sake of argument, we consider Nagorno-Karabakh to be a break-away province, not an autonomous country, WP:POLITICIAN also applies to office-holders at the State/Province level. Geo Swan (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am afraid we have a lapse from WP:BEFORE here. It turns out that there are references to support that at least some of these individuals qualify for WP:POLITICIAN. Sorry, but I think web searches should have been done on all these individuals prior to initiating this nomination. Consider Vardges Ulubabyan, Hovik Jivanyan and Rudik Hyusnunts. Geo Swan (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"About the Meetings of the Leadership of the PMR's MFA with Foreign Delegations". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. 2011-09-04. Retrieved 2013-10-17. On September 3-4, Deputy Foreign Minister of the PMR Alexander Malyarchuk held meetings with representatives of foreign delegations which had arrived in Pridnestrovie to participate in the festivities dedicated to the 21st anniversary of the formation of the PMR. Among them – official delegation of the Republic of Abkhazia headed by deputy of the People's Assembly of the RoA Pavel Leshchuk; official delegation of the Republic of South Ossetia headed by deputy of the RSO Parliament, chairperson of the Writers' Union of South Ossetia Meliton Kaziev; official delegation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic headed by deputy of the People's Assembly of the RNK, director of RNK State Archive Vardges Ulubabyan.
"Republic's Guests: In Pridnestrovie One Can Learn Tolerance and Respect for Personality of an Individual". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. 2011-03-09. Retrieved 2013-10-17. At the solemn meeting, deputy of the People's Assembly of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, director of the State Archive of the NKR Vardges Ulubabyan read out a congratulatory message of President of Nagorniy Karabakh Bako Saakyan addressed to the President and the people of the PMR.
"Artsakh delegation observes parliamentary election in Armenia". PanArmenian. 2012-05-06. Retrieved 2013-10-17. According to Karabakh-open.info, the observing mission includes NKR MPs Vahram Atanesyan, Hovik Jivanyan, Kamo Barseghyan, as well as parliamentary spokesman Mikael Hajyan and chairman of Karabakh's Central Electoral Committee Rashid Petrosyan.
"Il Nagorno-Karabakh – Parte 1" [The Nagorno-Karabakh - Part 1] (in Italian). AGC Communications. 2012-07-24. Retrieved 2013-10-18. L'Assemblea Nazionale, o parlamento, è composto da 33 membri eletti ogni 5 anni: attualmente il governo formatosi dopo le elezioni di giugno 2005 è composto dal partito leader, Artsakh Democratic Party (Adp), con 18 membri, dal partito Madrepatria Libera con 8 membri e dai 3 membri del partito ARF Dashnaktsutyun. Il presidente dell'Assemblea Nazionale è Ashot Ghulian di ADP, mentre il vice presidente Rudik Hyusnunts proviene dal partito Madrepatria Libera.
"Rudik Hyusnunts appointed deputy secretary of the NKR Security Council". Armen Press. 2011-12-30. Retrieved 2013-10-18.

Keep Vardges Ulubabyan, Hovik Jivanyan and Rudik Hyusnunts as above. Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This whole ((afd)) should probably be withdrawn, to give the nominators an opportunity to take a second crack at complying with WP:BEFORE. Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not withdrawing anything. They all fall under WP:BLPPROD. I just thought using the more thorough WP:AFD was better. Please source the ones you can. Also, I'm don't even think the sources you've provided meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I initiated a discussion at WP:RSN as to whether press releases from the governments of unrecognized states should be considered reliable sources. Geo Swan (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreating as actual articles. While it appears possible to find at least one verifiable fact about each of these individuals (thereby meeting WP:BLPPROD), none of these articles, as presented, are useful biographies because of their resumee-like character and superficial nature. Rather than letting them languish in this state indefinitely, better to redirect them to Nagorno-Karabakh until someone wants to take the time to create an actual stub. There is not enough baby here to preclude throwing out the bathwater. VQuakr (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment seems to be written as if WP:GNG was our only notability guideline. We have speciality notability guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN precisely because GNG doesn't suit all circumstances. I joined the wikipedia in 2004. Since long before I joined individuals who held a national or State/Province Office were exempted from having to meet GNG. Please recognize that the three individuals for whom I found references to substantiate that they are members of the legislature don't have to measure up to the GNG because they measure up to WP:POLITICIAN, superceding GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I didn't notice this before: some people are claiming that WP:POLITICIAN applies under the "provincial" rules (i.e., even if N-K isn't a recognized state, it's still a province). Could someone please provide a source for that? As far as I can tell from reading Nagorno-Karabakh, it is not considered to be a distinct province within Azerbaijan--that is, it's a region, not a state. Thus, it seems to me that WP:POLITICIAN does not apply, as these people are simply members of a group that acts as if it is an independent government, but does not have any recognition that it is so. Of course, said people could meet WP:GNG, but we haven't been given that evidence yet (and for some, we don't even have a single citation sufficient to pass WP:BLPPROD). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: WP:POLITICIAN includes two relevant caveats. First, the footnote on item one: "This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." Second, item three: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." Secondary guidelines exist to improve the consistency of coverage for certain classes of article, and your reading of them, while certainly defensible, is much more generous than mine. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In last in first out order:

You called my interpretation of the role of special purpose notability guideline "defensible", and then said it was "much more generous than mine." I think if we are going to discuss how to interpret the role of these guideline it would be very useful if you articulated your interpretation.
You quote item 3, which uses the phrase "elected local officials". The phrase "elected local officials" refers to office holders at a more local level than the Province/State/Canton/Oblast level -- like mayors, reeves, aldermen, city and town councilors, school trustees, etc. What item 3 means is that the notability of guys like former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani or Fiorello La Guardia has to be based on the GNG or some other special purpose notability guideline. As mayors they were "local elected officials" whose notability was established through GNG.
The footnote on item one? It is an explanation as to the reasoning behind deeming holders of high-level offices notable enough for a stand-alone article, even when they don't satisfy GNG Skip the first 3 sentences in the footnote, and pay attention to the conclusion in the 4th sentence.

So, I suggest what you describe as "caveats" are merely explanations, and not caveats at all. Geo Swan (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, you write: "As far as I can tell ... Nagorno-Karabakh ... it's a region, not a state." This distinction between regions and states/provinces is frankly unsupportable.

If you look at our County article you will see it lists countries were sub-national regions are called counties.

If you look at our article on Oblasts it says Oblast can be translated as either "Province" -- OR "Region".

Lots of countries have multiple second level units. Canada and Australia both have "Territories" an additional second level unit, parallel to their Provinces and States. Pakistan has both Provinces and Tribal Agencies. The USA used to have extensive territories, notably the Louisiana Territory and the Alaska Territory. Puerto Rico and Guam both have their own legislatures, so are an additional parallel second level sub-national region, and office-holders there should be accorded WP:POLITICIAN status.

I suggest it shouldn't matter what the locals call their sub-national region in their official language, or how that term is translated into English -- if the powers of that sub-national region are comparable to those of a Province in the Anglosphere we should accord office-holders within that region with WP:POLITICIAN status.

With regard to international recognition, you wrote: "as these people are simply members of a group that acts as if it is an independent government, but does not have any recognition that it is so." Do you know when the Chinese Communist Party took over control of China and exiled the Nationalists to Taiwan? 1949. Do you know when the United Nations allowed People's Republic of China to take China's seat on the UN Security Council? 1971. The USA didn't recognize Chinese sovereignty -- partially -- until 1979.

International recognition is highly politically charged, as Red China's story shows. To follow your reasoning Mao Zedong and Chou En Lai shouldn't have been accorded WP:POLITICIAN status -- because they were merely "members of a group acting as if they lead an independent government." I don't think our policies oblige us to maintain fictions. It is not up to us rule on International quandaries. Frankly, you seem to be advocating an approach that rather than preserving a neutral voice is a big departure from the neutral voice. Geo Swan (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking right? There is an obvious difference between a region and a sub-national political entity--one is a geographic term, and the other is a political term. Is Nagorno-Karabakh recognized by Azerbaijan as a discrete political unit, that has either separate laws, separate governing bodies, etc.? Or does the N-K just have a so-called parliament that is able to enact laws because the larger body is politically unable to stop it? For example, if a criminal gang is able to control a major portion of a city, and the government is unable to stop it, we don't suddenly call the leaders of that gang inherently notable per WP:POLTICIAN. Please note that I am not saying that these people are in any way criminals--what i'm really trying to do is express my ignorance, which is remedied only by what I see here on Wikipedia. And what I see is that N-K is not a state, and thus, by definition, does not have politicians. We have to draw the line somewhere; ideally, we draw it where the sources draw it, when we are able to do so. Do sources (those outside of N-K) recognize these people as "politicians" in the sense of being a legitimate representative of a legitimate government? If they do, and then if we can find even a single source verifying they are in this government, I can withdraw the nomination for those specific ones. For anyone for whom we don't have any sources, of course, BLPPROD still stands. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a gand controlled the area and with as much actual authority as the leaders of Nagorno-Karabakh have, then yes, its chief officers would be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian, please remember that, as an administrator, you should be setting an example of responsible behavior.

No, I am not joking, and I resent this comment. I am disturbed by the appearance of a lack of serious attention you are bringing ot this discussion. We are all volunteers here, so no one can expect to tell us which tasks to do. What I think we can expect of one another is that when we choose to begin a task we do our best to do a good job when we carry those tasks through to conclusion. I think you are falling short, and aren't making an effort to read and understand the points your respondents have tried to make.

I requested you read the Oblast article. If you had read the article, or even just taken my summary of it at face value, I don't believe you could have made the claim "There is an obvious difference between a region and a sub-national political entity--one is a geographic term, and the other is a political term." The Oblast article explains that the Russian term Oblast was translated into English as either Region or as Province. You have chosen to interpret region as region (geography), when, when applied to Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, or its successors, it clearly should be interpreted as region (Oblast) -- an area of political administration.

With regard to your repetition of your claim that official press releases from de facto states that don't have widespread international recognition can't be considered reliable sources -- I informed participants here that I initiated a thread at WP:RSN to get third party opinions on the RS aspect. You haven't made any attempt to explain your position there. My Pure Math buddies, back at University, would characterize you as using a "Proof by assertion".

You wrote: "Do sources (those outside of N-K) recognize these people as "politicians" in the sense of being a legitimate representative of a legitimate government?" I see this comment as a further instance where you have shown you aren't making an effort to pay attention to the points made by those who disagree with you. I quoted the first five references I found -- and they are all from outside of NKR -- 2 from Transnistria, 2 from Armenia, one from Italy. None of those references were from NKR.

You ask if Azerbaijan recognized NKR leaders, and its legislature? Did the United States of America recognize the Confederate States of America? Does the People's Republic of China recognize the Republic of China? What makes you think this is a question our policies entitle you to ask? Several of us stated that we thought an individual should be accorded WP:POLITICIAN status if they performed all the same taks as the office-holders of the Federal governments of other nations. Some of us have explained why we took this position. International recognition is highly politically charged, and counter-intuitive, and the de facto leaders of unrecognized nations can have other leaders accord them all the trappings even when they aren't recognized -- like when Nixon met with Mao Zedong. Somalia was stricken with civil war, some decades ago. But it is the south, around Mogadishu, that is still in a chaotic war-lord state. Somaliland and Puntland are two unrecognized states in the north of former Somalia. People there pay taxes and receive government services -- just like in recognized states. When the USA wanted to repatriate Somalian captives who had been held in Guantanamo American diplomats negotiated with Somaliland diplomats. Evidence that a lack of formal recognition does not prevent informal recognition, and the conducting of diplomatic business.

For what it is worth the Government of Azerbaijan recognized the Government of NKR to the extent they entered into Peace Talks with them. Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Rosenberg (2008-11-04). "Pentagon transfers 3 from Guantánamo prison camps". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2008-11-05. Retrieved 2008-11-05. Somaliland declared its independence from Somalia in 1991, and by some accounts has served as a U.S. ally in the Horn of Africa in the fight against Islamic militants in Somalia, to its south. The Bush administration has said it is leaving to the African Union any decision on recognition.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provisionally Keep those who have sources as identified by User:Geo Swan, but delete the rest as unsourced BLPs. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jtn2002 gives no !vote. Cowlinator's initial statement does not talk about notability. And so is the case with the ip, Human v2.0, LTCb2412, Ril the Wordsmith... Cowlinator does provide some argument later on; but overall, with three well explained delete comments (including the nominator's), and a one keep !vote (which I'm only just about considering), this is a delete result. Wifione ^Message 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warky T. Chocobo[edit]

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

Non-notable personality whose voice credits are for fancruft. DasGreggo (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe Wikipedia's neutrality policy applies to misuse of Flag for Deletion. DasGreggo has come back to Wikipedia after a 6 year hiatus for the sole purpose of flagging this article. (see DasGreggo Contributions)

DasGreggo also falls into the same category an entertainer. This definitely violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy as this user ( a guest at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anime_Blast_Chattanooga ) is the same level of personality. --Jtn2002 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, "Fancruft" is not a valid reason for flagging an article for deletion. I will now quote the Wikipedia policy on fancruft (emphasis added): "As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily because articles labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, non-neutral, unreferenced, or contain original research. These issues may contribute to deletion."

This article is not poorly written, unwikified, non-neutral, unreferenced, and contains no original research.

To quote the same article again: "The term 'fancruft' is most commonly applied to fictional subjects". Please speedily undo this flag. --Cowlinator (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB page, SAG member, voice actor on Cardcaptor Sakura and video games. Well known in the con circuits. Speedy keep is my vote, this meets the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.72.52 (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having IMDb or SAG and being known in the con circuits are not inherently notable. Just being a voice actor is not good enough by itself. He is not in the Japanese original Cardcaptor Sakura, Fujitaka and Touya were voiced by Hideyuki Tanaka and Tomokazu Seki. He wasn't in the English redub, Fujitaka and Touya were renamed. So what one was he in? The fancruft "non-profit fan-based parody"? Not a notable production. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Nominator's rational fails on all grounds, as mentioned above.Human.v2.0 (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Report Editor to WP:ANI -- This editor has a strong conflict of interest, and this article does not meet ANY criteria for an AFD. Furthermore, this article meets all requirements for WP:BLP. I will be posting this to both WP:ANI and WP:BLPN to alert other administrators. LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 14:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Information is useful to people unfamiliar with Warky. Wikipedia is one of the best go-to sources for looking up something you don't know; as a more local celebrity, when Warky is listed as a guest to a con, con-goers may not know who he is. This page is a useful way to become informed as to who he is, what he does, and what to expect from him. Additionally, new fans may find out more about Warky via this page and where else they may find his works, growing in usefulness as Warky does more prominent roles in voice acting. Therefore this is not just fancruft, which, as mentioned, isn't actually against any Wikipedia rules anyway.Rii the wordsmith (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC). — Rii the wordsmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:USEFUL. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move Move the article to be under Steve Nunez, not an alias. --PatrickD (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, he is known under his stage name, which he has been using and promoting and is more known as Warky than Steve. A person's Wiki entry is listed by the name that they are most known for using, see Lady Gaga as one example of this. A disambiguation or redirect from Steve Nunez would be acceptable under Wiki Guidelines, but it would be impractical to move the article, as he is more commonly known under his alias than his actual name. LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 03:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Warky T. Chocobo lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The article is flooded with a lot of bad sources. Amazon, imdb, facebook, mormonwiki, linkedin. Not usable. Official pages, primary, not independent. Passing mentions, him talking about himself. His "notable credits" for Prophecy Of The Flame, CardCaptor Sakura: Abridged and Gun Loco are not good enough for WP:ENT. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The bad sources should be removed. The article also contains sources which are reliable and published. Could you please point out where his is "talking about himself?" I cannot find any such POV in the article. His "notable credits" are Heroes of Newearth (460,000 unique players) and Dungeon Fighter Online (300 million registered users), and the fact that he is the only Mormon Parodist, which means he has made unique contributions to a field of entertainment (see WP:ENT). --Cowlinator (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the bad sources, trivial mentions, him talking about himself (eg radio dmg), we are left with Deseret News (look what this local is doing) which by itself is not enough.

If those are his notable credits why does the infobox list the ones I mentioned? Why "He is probably best known as the voice of the Narrator in Prophecy Of The Flame" from a previous version of this article?

Where is the evidence of him having significant parts in these games? Where is the coverage of his parts? (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL).. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Let’s look at reviews of Heroes of Newerth. In the four listed on that page, Game Informer, Game Revolution, GameZone, PC Gamer, there is no mention of Warky (or any actor). Are those games the right sort of production for WP:ENT? Reviews don't talk about actors, they focus on the gameplay. They are not like films, tv, plays were the actors are a major aspect, where people talk about them and their characters.

Is he really the only Mormon Parodist? WP:V? Even if he is, is that unique in any special way? There is a lot of Mormons. There is a lot of parodists. What makes the intersection special? Mormon Parodist isn't really a field of entertainment. You are unique in that you are only person editing Wikipedia as Cowlinator. Just being unique is not enough, there has to be something significant about it. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Duffbeerforme, and welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anybody can edit! If the information in the infobox does not display his notable credits, try clicking "edit" at the top of the page and fixing it!

Deseret News is not a local paper, it is an international Mormon paper, and Warky was not living in Utah at the time of the article anyway. There have also been news articles about him in the Pahrump Valley Times and Fox 12 Idaho.

Also, you are right: Video game reviews don't talk about the voice actors; yet this does not mean that we should remove video game credits from every voice actor's article. --Cowlinator (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the smartarsed reply, it was illuminating. You are the one claiming his notable credits are different to the infobox. Why in all the time you've spent on this article haven't you changed it? Why only bring it up at this afd?

Why then does Deseret say he does live in Utah? If you have other sources, provide details.

Noone has suggested to remove video game credits, why are you arguing against it? Building a strawman? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Multiple albums on two more-than-notable record labels meet WP:BAND --Cowlinator (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how he meet this for multiple reasons. I see no evidence HaleYeah! Records are notable (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Who is the other label you are claiming is "more-than-notable"? WP:MUSIC doesn't say notable label, it calls for "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". Who is on HaleYeah! Records roster? What history do they have? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notable roles and Duffbeerforme's arguments. A lot of his roles seem to lack reliable sourcing also. I also want to note the users who voted keep are suspicious, where one's first edit was right here on this page (1 2 3 4). DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seyan[edit]

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

Not notable. Mentioned in a list of clans produced by one of several caste associations but not discussed in any significant manner in reliable sources Sitush (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [somewhere]. Need help to determine best place for redirect. -- Green Cardamom (talk)`
- Withdrawn -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the clans listed in the Rajput Groups of India template - seems to be an upsurge in work on these articles - WP:TIND --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjayay (talk • contribs)

It was added to the template by the same editor who created this article.[45] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears in A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province as "Sián". That name is occupied by the dab page sian so we might move to a qualified form. Warden (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in a glossary isn't really a source to write an encyclopedia article with. There is no doubt the name merely exists. If the AfD closes delete there would be no issue with creating a dab page if needed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. We have no minimum size requirement and other encyclopedias commonly have brief entries — enough is as good as a feast. We have a standard classification for such brief entries — WP:STUB. Warden (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A single entry in a glossary is not enough for WP:SIGCOV (ie. WP:GNG). There is no assertion of "significance", and GNG requires "multiple" sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of significance is required, whatever that may mean, as we are not in the business of making or requiring value judgements. For another source, see Sir James Dunlop Smith's Customary Law of the Main Tribes of the Siálkot District. That's another article that needs starting as a stub - there's no end to the gaps in our coverage. Warden (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention". An assertion is not a value judgement, it says something beyond "this thing exists". The multiple sources (per WP:GNG) need content from which we can write an encyclopedia article beyond merely "this is a name used in India". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man. Warden (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually saying something is a straw man can be a red herring.. See Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary aka biographical dictionary. If there's something to say about the tribe that is encyclopedic and notable it could be a stub, but listing it exists is a genealogical/biographical dictionary entry. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can do more than say it exists and so such conjectures are irrelevant. Warden (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I'm not against including this information on Wikipedia, but a standalone article has a higher requirement of sourcing that is more difficult to achieve. I agree that Wikipedia is lacking in this area, but rather than trying to force through weak stubby articles that keep showing up at AfD, a list-article should be created with a paragraph or so for each, then when it gets enough content/sourcing spin it off to a separate article using a "main article" link. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator tries to delete lists of such clans and tribes too. Warden (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the sourcing is poor it would be a problem. Many of these tribes/clans amount to surnames. There are occasionally articles on surnames such as Smith (surname) but most surnames don't have articles (beyond dabs). They could if the sources are there for it to build an encyclopedia article with. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have thousands of pages about surnames — see category:Surnames. Warden (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your right don't know enough about it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus of above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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