< 19 September	21 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

100 Sexiest Women in Comics[edit]

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

Submitted per User:Antiqueight from request at WT:AFD. Lists (note, one appears to be a printed text with ISBN #) do not show any signs of notability, and as contemporary lists in the last few years, don't show any signs of reliable sources outside of themselves. No real merge or redirect topic exists (and due to the copyvio issues, if there was, this should be deleted before the merge/redirect).

Note that prior to this AFD , I have removed the reproduction of the two lists due to the fact both lists are based on subjective selection and thus is considered a copyright violation. Whether the lists are included or not is a separate issue on whether the lists themselves are notable. MASEM (t) 23:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, I don't think two magazine articles that are maybe sort of about this subject are worth an article about them. Throw this article in the trashcan where it belongs, please. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is a blog post, not an encyclopedia article. The lists are not notable enough to warrant an article. An encyclopedic article could potentially be written about the reception of women in comics, but this is just an indiscriminate collection of lists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inherently subjective list. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing particularly notable about the lists themselves and there are copyright issues with duplicating the entire lists. I could see these being mentioned at Portrayal of women in comics though. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 17:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Trivia. DaveApter (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subjective.....general fail. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qa'dir Vyrotek[edit]

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

Article about a musician that is not yet there perhaps and is therefore promotional. The only obvious claim to notability (often regarded as one of the best indie films of the 2012 summer) is sourced to a press release. The rest of the references are repetitive, not reliable or not enough to establish real notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the 5th best new rapper of 2012--TheMaclin (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)TheMaclin[reply]

Keep - Here are more sources ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] --TheMaclin (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)themaclin[reply]

^ Maclin, Rick (12 September 2012). "Justin Bieber, Vyrotek, And One Direction Talk Grammy Snubs". Top 40 Charts. New York, New York: Top40. Retrieved September 12, 2012.
^ "MME Interviews Vyrotek On New Album; Vyrotek Promises Revival Of RapRock". Top 40. New York, New York: Top 40 charts. 12 December 2013. ((cite web)): |first= missing |last= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ http://www.top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=78854

comment - For the repetitious part, the title's are the same, but the sites are totally different.--TheMaclin (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)TheMaclin[reply]

Keep - Wouldn't MTV be a source for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMaclin (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More sources http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=84820 http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=84965 --68.81.118.197 (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)TheMaclin[reply]
Delete. A PR piece sourced by PR pieces. The MTV hosted bio is not by them. The Massive Music Entertainment claim is sourced to a PR release not to MME, which shows no sign of being a credible publication (2 Facebook likes!). He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked that up too, I do not think that that's an official page as MME has not been around since 2006.
Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3 (hoax). Will redirect to the 2004 Ford GT after deleting, as this does appear to be a commonly-used slang name for it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ford GT43[edit]

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

Non-existent car. None of the three external links show any indication of a "GT43" from 1968; the name is used solely for throwaway remarks about the 2004 Ford GT. The GT40 was still being used in 1968; the article's entire formatting style further promotes the hoax. If the consensus is to redirect, please delete the hoax information beforehand. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checkster[edit]

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

Company does not appear to meet our notability standards, see WP:CORP. Sources all look like PR releases. Contested prod. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, bordering on WP:CSD#G11 advert. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - There doesn't seem to be sufficient and substantial sources to build a good article. At Google News, a "Checkster 2006" search provides one press release (useless for Wikipedia) and two archived HR magazine links which are somewhat helpful but not enough (one link mentions the product). Another search, "Checkster Yves Lermusi" also provided links mostly press releases and some third-party such as this (not very useful though, mentions one client but a news search with that didn't provide much). The link is from 2007 and news searches don't provide anything else so who knows if that was (1) a substantial customer and (2) even a client anymore. Another link here is third-party but the preview doesn't provide much. There's another link this but it really doesn't provide much. There's also this but it seems to be more of a recommendation, and the last link here (very brief mention). Searches at Google Books only provided this (a brief mention). One of the current references in this article is this one which doesn't say much and claims it will talk about the product again soon but a search at the website only provides two other links (the latter a republished press release) which is not much. Prior to ending my searches, I searched further and further but failed to find anything promising aside from more press releases of course. I have no prejudice towards userfying or a future article when the time calls for one. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Sear[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, fails WP:BIO. I can find no coverage in reliable sources. let alone significant coverage. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The boy is an extremely minor part in Godot, and I think the rest is equally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --The person who created the article only made two edits on WP and both on this article. Thus it seems he is violating the WP:SPA-rule. Further, the article suffers from WP:O Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If we have insufficient sources then merging to a list a seems counter-intuative. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Alexander Carruthers[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. previous AfDs have shown no inherent notability for ambassadors. a search for "Clive Carruthers" finds very little coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Canadian diplomats. Pburka (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm reconsidering my !vote. Further research reveals that he became a fairly well known amateur archaeologist after retiring, and has published several papers. It's not enough for WP:ACADEMIC, but between that and his diplomatic career he might muster sufficient notability. I also note that LibStar's observation that a search finds very little coverage of him may be in part because Google hasn't indexed many Guatemalan newspapers from the 1970s. Pburka (talk)

would you not expect Carruthers to appear in Canadian newspapers which are well indexed in gnews? LibStar (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian sources from the 1970s are pretty spotty as well. Even when they have been scanned, the search engines rely on OCR which is often poor. (I also freely admit that I have a bias in favour of keeping articles about diplomats.) Pburka (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't find much coverage in gbooks either [1]. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is certainly out, at least to List of Canadian diplomats as proposed. Merge what, exactly? If Carruthers had biographical information included there, he'd be the only one with such? He's either notable or he's not. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What would be wrong with adding info about the positions held to the list List of Canadian diplomats? I submit that such information would improve the list. Pburka (talk) 18:21, 14 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) 01:53, 13 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, buff bills 7701 20:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While diplomats are not Auto-Keeps under a special guideline, I'm having a hard time understanding how this particular challenge helps to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Canadian diplomats, per WP:ANYBIO, WP:BEFORE. -- Trevj (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 5 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) 01:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jithan 2[edit]

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

Unnotable film, does not meet WP:NF. No information on production, no significant coverage in media. May be WP:TOOSOON. Dwaipayan (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 20:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per simply being TOO SOON. For a planned film, lack of coverage of production in reliable sources has this fail WP:NF and WP:NFF. We can allow undeletion/recreation once we have confirmation of the beginning of filming and only if/when it gets coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the reasons above, the purpose of the article is promotional from an author with a clear conflict of interest. --Drm310 (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. DaveApter (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EdTechnology Ideas[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal, having published just a handful of articles yet. Article creation vastly premature. References do not even mention the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Brand new journal with 9 papers published. Hasn't had time to develop notability in reliable secondary sources that talk about the journal. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Fairly OddParents (season 5). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Idol[edit]

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

Only one source, this article has virtually no production and reception from reviewers and ratings, all nothing but fancruft. JJ98 (Talk) 18:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep or Redirect searchable title to List of The Fairly OddParents episodesas was done with earlier similar AFDs for lacking individual notability, even if covered in some manner in such as DVD VerdictAnimation Magazine Animation World Network PopMatters Las Vegas Review-Journal . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Fairly OddParents (season 5), add more to the plot summary As said in the School's Out! nom, another extended episode with false movie branding with a bunch of fancruft about polls and block hosts nobody cares about seven years later. Nate • (chatter) 08:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ramirez (musician)[edit]

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

No extensive coverage in independent nor reliable sources, therefore non-notable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject operates in a rather obscure field, but I added a couple of reviews from The Wire, which shows a level of international attention. I don't think they are enough to establish WP:MUSICBIO notability in themselves (as The Wire, to its credit, publishes a lot of wide-ranging reviews) but if someone turns up similar from another publication, that would take me to a "keep". AllyD (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are also several articles from the Houston Press ([2], [3], [4]), who describe him as a "legendary, cutting-edge and influential musician", and D magazine ([5]), which together with the coverage from Wire seems just enough to put him above the bar. --Michig (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2016[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. All this is pure speculation at this point. The election is three years away. ...William 16:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions....William 20:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, it's not "pure speculation". WP:TOOSOON says that "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon". Well, sourced do exist. Johnson is running for re-election, Russ Feingold is openly talking about a re-match, there are other sourced potential candidates and there's been polling conducted on the race. Just because it's 3 years away doesn't mean it shouldn't have an article. It's a scheduled election like the 2016 presidential election: it's notable, almost certain to take place and it's got declared candidates, potential candidates and polling. Tiller54 (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't understand the decision to nominate this article for deletion. For one, there's an article on the 2016 Senate election in New Hampshire, but that has not been nominated for deletion. To give a point of reference, this is around the time that election articles start to be created. The article for the 2012 Senate election in Nevada was created in October 2009, more than three full years before the election. But beyond all of that, I provided sources, because not only have media outlets started to talk about the election, albeit within the narrowed confines of whether Feingold will run again, but polling has been done on the election, which leads me to believe that it is not too early to create this article. Tqycolumbia (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Royal broil 12:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this is a political event that will happen in the future, it inevitably will happen and is already the subject of news coverage in the mainstream media. If we toss this out now, at what point does it become acceptable to write on this encyclopedic topic — after the election??? Carrite (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The race is going to happen and already well sourced. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subjectively, I agree that it seems a bit early to be writing about this topic, but it seems notable enough to attract several citations, and there's no specific policy against eagerness. This seems to pass WP:CRYSTAL. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ninjabot. I feel it's too early, but polling has already started. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadora[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of The Return of Ultraman 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) 16:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. More Ultra fancruft from a banned sockpuppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senarath Liyana Arachchi[edit]

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

Procedural. Not notable. CSD A7 declined by IP. GregJackP Boomer! 01:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. He seems like a notable astrologer in Sri Lanka. The Sunday Times calls him "a well known astrologer"[6] He appears often on TV shows. [7][8][9][10][11][12] That plus the significant award Deshabandu suggests someone above the typical astrologer. Notable, within the context of "Sri Lanka" and "astrologer" (which is not fringe). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:51, 6 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) 02:22, 13 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) 16:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've no idea what "Notable, within the context of "Sri Lanka" and "astrologer" (which is not fringe)" means, but I think it is self evident that astrology is a fringe belief. For a claimed notable person there is a very noticeable absence of sources: [13][14][15][16]. Now on the claim of a deshabandu award for his astrology and palmistry is claimed. Firstly, no such award exists as it appears to have been spelt wrong (in the absence of some grammatical rule I am unaware of) as it is referred to as " desabandu" in both of the sources used in the article deshabandu [17][18]. Now what you will notice is that Senarath Liyana Arachchi is not actually listed at [19] (they may have had an issue with spelling and it could be there somewhere, I notice they spelt Arthur C. Clarke wrong). The weight this award carries is not evident and I see no evidence that its the third highest award in Sri Lanka (being the highest award would be a better claim to notability anyway ...). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasbir Hussain[edit]

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

I denied a speedy, but I have serious doubts about this person's notability. There's a few references that could help in establishing some notability for the subject, but it's a bit iffy--I don't consider this reliable, for instance). Drmies (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of my biggest concerns was that it was so promotional and non-encyclopedic in tone, it'd need to be re-written from scratch to really weed through what's a true claim to notability and what's puffery. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. I'm playing nice today. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete—I think that he _should_ be notable enough, and in fact I started to rewrite the article in a more neutral tone. But I ran across trouble finding sources... He's a prolific journalist, so his name shows up on bylines all over the place. Even using paid research services like Questia only showed up one citation by another author of his work. In short, there's a lot by him, and not much about him. If someone can find reliable sources (specifically ones that aren't self published), I'd be happy to work on expanding this article, but for now, it's got to be a delete. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 00:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple reviews in reliable sources. The Hindu (x2), Hindustan Times, Indo-Asian News Service (x2), Oneindia.in, Assam Tribune (x2), FriedEye, Assam Times (x2). About 11 give or take, not all of them are traditional reviews but India has a different culture book reviewing it is not as common (see "Books" @ WP:INDAFD) thus this many notices is more significant than other countries. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:38, 5 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) 01:50, 13 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) 16:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty articles authored by Hussain which serve a a source on Wikipedia. I believe that readers are entitled to know what wikipedia's article's sources are (like mr. Hussain). Jeff5102 (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Hockey League attendance figures[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS. taking this article to its logical complete state would include an entry for every team in every season since 1917. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear case of WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 11:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed. Reso lute 14:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Patken4 (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into relevant NHL season article (i.e. section "2012-13 attendance statistics" to be merged into 2012–13 NHL season, ect.) then redirect to List of NHL seasons. Dolovis (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change my iVote to Keep and merge per reasons given by Arxiloxos and Mentoz86 below. Dolovis (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No satisfactory explanation is given for how this supposedly violates WP:NOTSTATS. It's important information, sensibly organized, and absolutely appropriate as encyclopedic coverage of sports. The only specific objection given is that, when completed, the article would be too long in order to cover all the seasons of each league. To which the answer is: So what? Wikipedia is not paper. When the list gets longer, it can be divided into pieces as we do with all sorts of lengthy articles.

I can understand the objections that have been raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football club attendances (2006) with respect to attendance lists that combine different sports. But many of the editors at that AfD have commented that collections of attendance information for individual sports are encyclopedic. Attendance in the major North American sports leagues receives continuing coverage and is vital to an understanding of those sports. Deleting this sourced, important information outright doesn’t accord with WP:PRESERVE and isn’t helpful to anyone. The suggestion to merge this list into the corresponding season articles is something that can be discussed, although it doesn’t facilitate year-to-year comparison as well as this list does, and I don’t see any policy reason why a multiyear list isn't appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Arxiloxos. Unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football club attendances (2006), attendance figures in leagues like this is normally discussed as a group by reliable sources, which means this list passes WP:LISTN. Merging sounds reasonable, but that can be discussed on the talk-page after this AfD is closed. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:33, 17 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) 16:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a little bit almanacky, but this is the sort of thing that our readers will expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Certainly a topic of ample media coverage. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Arxiloxos and Carrite.--Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 14:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League attendance figures[edit]

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

fails WP:NOTSTATS. Taken to its logical complete state would contain and entry for every team from every season since 1920. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear case of WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 11:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good WP:DISCRIMINATE list of information. Clearly passes WP:N with coverage and discussions in major media sources. As for WP:NOTSTATS, the list of data is not confusing and is shown in a easy-to-understand format. Also, the article contains "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader" -- therefore, it actually passes the very policy referenced for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into relevant NFL season articles (i.e. section "2011 attendance statistics" to be merged into 2011 NFL season, ect.) then redirect to List of NFL seasons. Dolovis (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think a merge is not practical given the size and scope of the two articles in question.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No satisfactory explanation is given for how this supposedly violates WP:NOTSTATS. It's important information, sensibly organized, and absolutely appropriate as encyclopedic coverage of sports. The only specific objection given is that, when completed, the article would be too long in order to cover all the seasons of each league. To which the answer is: So what? Wikipedia is not paper. When the list gets longer, it can be divided into pieces as we do with all sorts of lengthy articles.

I can understand the objections that have been raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football club attendances (2006) with respect to attendance lists that combine different sports. But many of the editors at that AfD have commented that collections of attendance information for individual sports are encyclopedic. Attendance in the major North American sports leagues receives continuing coverage and is vital to an understanding of those sports. Deleting this sourced, important information outright doesn’t accord with WP:PRESERVE and isn’t helpful to anyone. The suggestion to merge this list into the corresponding season articles is something that can be discussed, although it doesn’t facilitate year-to-year comparison as well as this list does, and I don’t see any policy reason why a multiyear list isn't appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Arxiloxos. Unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football club attendances (2006), attendance figures in leagues like this is normally discussed as a group by reliable sources, which means this list passes WP:LISTN. Merging sounds reasonable, but that can be discussed on the talk-page after this AfD is closed. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While a merge would be acceptable, after viewing the information stated above and on the page itself I would say this passes WP:LISTN. Verdict78 (talk) 14:46, 17 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) 16:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I don't like it" because I think an encyclopedia should be about text articles, not data spreadsheets. I really wanted to vote delete but I can't find a reason WP should not have this article. "Not stats" is about long lists of statistics within a normal text article. When the whole point of the article is to give the statistics then "not stats" does not seem to apply. The data is notable and would be of interest and useful to people who want to know about the topic. Otherwise they would probably have to go to each team's site and put the information together themselves. BayShrimp (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a little bit almanacky, but this is the sort of thing that our readers will expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Certainly a topic of ample media coverage. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think most people would expect a list of NFL attendance figures in an encyclopedia. BayShrimp (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perimeter E-Security[edit]

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

Incomplete nomination by User:Mikefromnyc, who gave the reason: page is advertising for a "for profit" company, absolutely not encyclopedia material. The sourcing looks dubious, is largely non-independent, some links are dead, and the article is rife with marketing-speak. The latter two are not by themselves reasons for deletion, but we still need third-party sources for establishing notability.

I will also note that the AfD notice pointing to nowhere has remained in this article for six days. Clearly nobody seems interested in maintaining this article. Also not a reason for deletion, but well… this is embarrassing. Keφr 13:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The deadlinked findarticle references provide no clue from which to hunt them down. I can find only press releases or on of their staff being quoted like this. That's not sufficient to establish notability. Searches were conducted under all the various names listed in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 17 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) 15:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attenborough Building[edit]

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

Just a college campus building. No indication of independent notability and the article is woefully lacking in sources. WP is not a school project. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did anyone actually bother to search for sources for this award-winning building? Here's a few: Push Guide to Which University ("the Attenborough building, 18 storeys high, which won a design award"), Pevsner, Stimpson (1985) A field guide to landmarks of modern architecture in Europe, Murray & Trombley (1990) Modern Architecture Guide: Britain. It may not justify a standalone article, but would certainly be worth a section in the article on the University. Perhaps searching for a few sources would have been less effort than adding completely redundant ((cn)) tags to virtually every sentence in an article that is also tagged as ((unreferenced)). --Michig (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable building which dominates its setting. Warden (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - likely notable for the awards, let alone the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources outlined above. The ((cn)) template spam littering the article is really a bit silly. Also, the building is commonly known as the "Attenborough Tower" so I'm adding that to the find sources links above. Stalwart111 13:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia's notability criterias, but I agree with Michig; its not worth a stand alone article but could be incorporated within the main University page. It has some local notability nowhere near enough to meet Wikipedia's notability criterias; and the subjective assessment of "dominating its setting" has no bearing on notability for an article. It has no significant courage- in the sources listed above, Pevsner and Push Guide don't even afford it a full sentence, let alone the significant coverage of the subject directly in detail, required by policy. As for the award (singular), Push states it "won a design award", with no further elaboration -a single unnamed award is hardly notable. A google search finds pretty much zero other than the university's own page and a press release stating the water was turned off in the building for 2 days in Feb 2011- both of which are of course self-published and thus not proof of notability. Even the university's own page is thin, deeming the building worth only 3 short sentences. "Designed by Arup Associates and opened in 1970. It is named after Frederick Attenborough (1887-1973), Principal of the University College from 1931 to 1951. The Attenborough Tower contains one of the last working paternoster lifts in Britain." -and again, no mention of any award. --Rushton2010 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not read Pevsner fully - that source contains more than a sentence and so passes WP:SIGCOV. Warden (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)7[reply]

I did read it actually. And no, having more than one sentence does count as "significant coverage". A few minor mentions do not class as "significant coverage". The article quite clearly fails General Notability Criteria, and massively fails the "Notability requires verifiable evidence" rule as it has no references. --Rushton2010 (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, significant coverage is not required by any policy, and while you pick out a couple of sources that possibly don't give significant coverage, you seem to be ignoring Stimpson and Murray & Trombley, which likely do. Whether or not the award is significant enough to confer encyclopedic relevance is not something we can be sure of either way until we know what the award is. --Michig (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ERRRRMMM.... Just to clarify, "significant coverage" is required by policy -it is the first point of the General Notability Criteria; which as the name suggests is the general policy by which we access whether a subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article or not. And no I'm not ignoring anything -I considered all of the sources you mentioned when I made my assessment. And you say "likely do"... so you've not read these sources and thus don't know if the buildings are even mentioned in those sources, and as you admit, whether any mention is significant or passing.--Rushton2010 (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not a policy. It is a guideline. Yes the building is mentioned in those two sources - part of the entries on the building are visible in Google Books. --Michig (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The building was opened when I was at the university. It is one of the major buildings of the university. I cannot provide sources other than my memory, but I see nothing inaccurate in the content. Leicester is not a city full of high rise buildings, which makes one of the few that there is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go read Wikipedia's policies. Sentimentality, memory and height are not part of wikipedia's notability criteria which the building fails. --11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, let's all agree on one thing — this piece sucks and needs to be improved and sourced out. Now, on to the real reason we are here — are there sufficient sources for this building to clear GNG? Carrite (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion in Stimpson (1985) A field guide to landmarks of modern architecture in Europe, cited by Michig above, definitely counts as one towards GNG. And THIS coverage on Skyscrapernews.com would seem to count as two... Carrite (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~MORE COVERAGE from Charnwood Arts. Hopefully of use to someone sourcing out the piece.~~ A Google search does indicate that Attenborough Tower (note common title) is a landmark of the university of which it is a part. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC) - Whoops, lifted from WP. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a pretty close call. Merger to the piece on the University might be an acceptable outcome. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs better references and citations, but it's obviously notable. Deb (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that it appears to be notable enough, but it definitely needs sources. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Page moved to Extended theories of gravity, undue weight noted regarding Hernández et al work. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended theory of gravity[edit]

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

Lacks the independent notice necessary for notability in the sciences. jps (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

arXiv:1307.4523 looks plenty independant to me... The main problem seems to be that this article gives undue weight to Hernández et al. The original papers are also published in reputable journals, and decently cited. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The paper you cite is on an ostensibly different (that is to say, broader) subject. We already have articles on the notable topics such as Alternatives_to_general_relativity and f(R) gravity. This particular flavor of theoretical extensions, if deemed relevant, can be added at those places. jps (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to f(R) gravity is something I might support. The Hernandez version may still be notable on its own, but merging into the main article would seem to make more sense at this point. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: why not? Porting usable content might be okay. There's no reason why F(R) ~ R^(3/2) can't be discussed. But I don't think a redirect of this particular title to f(R) gravity makes any sense considering that the proper article should be on a class of theories and not give any particular deference to a single one. jps (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArXiv is an author-submitted repository. Anything found there is effectively 'self-published' and does not qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. At least as written, this article makes it appear like just one person's pet theory, and all of the published (as opposed to just deposited) citations are from the same research group, with no published third-party discussion of this theory. Agricolae (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the references given, except arXiv:1307.0777, are published works in reliable peer-reviewed venues. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh! Then why are we citing them only as ArXiv? Where are the journal or book names, volumes and page numbers? (Some of them have now been added, but refs 3, 6, 7 & 9 are still lacking in some or all of this critical information.) That doesn't change the fact that nobody seems to have taken notice of this - only the last reference is independent of the Mendoza group, and in a 16-page review of Extended Gravity, it only cites their work for the sentence, "On the other side, it is necessary to look for correlations among the investigated quantities in order to frame some fundamental empirical relationships, such as the Tully-Fisher relation, within Extended Theories of Gravity." That this passing reference in some manner establishes this one group's work as the lone, sole notable "Extended theory of gravity", to the exclusion of the work in the other 100+ references cited by the same review, is completely unsupportable. In fact, it is hard to AGF when faced with a page that ignores the work of all but one research group while citing a review that includes over 100 articles from other groups. Agricolae (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Then why are we citing them only as ArXiv?" See WP:WIP. The lesson here is don't dismiss stuff solely because it's on the arxiv. As for the missing information, I've added it, although that was hardly "critical", since the DOIs were there, there was more than enough informations to find the articles. Ref. 9 is in production, so page numbers don't exist yet. The rest of the criticism is valid, however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here I would have said that the lesson is that if all you only cite a non-RS and leave it to the reader to figure out an RS version exists (or bury the RS in a DOI at the end of the footnote with no indication in the text of the note itself), the reliability of the material is likely to be undervalued. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this Physics Reports review on Extended Theories of Gravity runs to 160 pages and this solid secondary source shows that this class of theories is notable. The main problem with the article is that it gives undue weight to a small, recent subset of these theories. While a NPOV is a problem to be fixed, it is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extensions to general relativity would be a fine article. It would not be under this title. jps (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to f(R) gravity or alternatives to general relativity. Subject matter seems to be real scientific theory and encyclopedia should cover MOND-variants, variants of f(R) etc. if they are published in real journals like this one seems to be. But the title of article falsely conveys to readers this to be The Extended Theory of Gravity while in truth this is just one of many recent proposed alternatives/extensions to general relativity, and not that well-known or established. jni (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge Improvement of this page info will be properly made if there is a place to work it out. Eventualy, an "Extended theories of gravity" page will be needed where this and other theories can be well classified. Meanwhile, F(R) seems a fair choice. Editting assistance will be needed to prevent WP:COI. Thanks for the updates, interest and support! I'm the article's creator.----Hipatia (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Interesting topic, with available references, but is more suited to a section of a pre-existing article, such as alternatives to general relativity. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering the changes made to generalize this page, I've changed my position to keep. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change title Let this be the page for Extended Theories of Gravity... in general. Add introduccion, Be F(X)=X3/2 one of them. Add link from classification allready in Recent alternative theories in Gravitation page. I still don´t have the know how with the math typing in WP, help with this is much appretiated.Hipatia 15:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Hipatia

Keep and change title, per User:Hipata, and User:Mark viking. As indicated above throughout the discussion, this particular article appears to be a specific case of the more general concept, or concepts, of "Extended Theories of Gravity" based on the article linked by User:Mark viking above. Here is the link again.

I agree with Mark, that this is a solid secondary source and shows notability for the topic "Extended Theories of Gravity". In fact, there is a copy of this article at arxiv.org, in PDF format. So this article, combined with fleshing out some of its referenced articles, ~~seen as helpful for such an article on Wikipedia,~~ appears to be a simple task.

As an aside, I haven't had a chance to correlate the references with this article, but if two, three, or four suppport this particular article, then keep this article too, but change that title also. If not then merge. As Headbomb pointed out, most all of the references are in peer reviewed publications. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wrote an introduction on top of the existing text using the reference first mentioned by Mark viking. It's probably pretty rough, it gets the general idea across, but the reference gets technical enough where I have to spend time doing a bunch of background reading - and I just don't have the time. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the page gets kept under the more general name, it needs to be TNTed. As has been pointed out, it was written as if only one group is doing all the work on the subject. This will invariably give undue weight to that group's work even when the article is expanded to include that of others. It needs to be pared back to the basics of the general topic, then rewritten with balanced coverage of all the research. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording a bit to reflect that the results produced by Mendoza, S.; Hernandez, X.; Hidalgo, et al; published in the 7 or 8 references of the (now) second section, is a specific case of "Extended theories of gravity". Also, Headbomb and I have added four references to this article that cover the general topic of "Extended theories of gravity", which have very decent citation rates (see Google Scholar). Two of these references are in the new "further reading" section. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:39, 16 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) 15:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. Can we leave this up at AfD a few more days, so we can read and digest it? Bearian (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark viking. A move is possible. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no prejudice against recreation Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2000s in India[edit]

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

currently, just a list of people, with two unsourced statements about trends. I don't see how this can be turned into an article without simply starting over. the only other 'decade' article for India, as far as I can tell, is 1990s in India, which also has problems, although not as severe. on the other hand, the year articles are sensibly formatted (e.g., 2000 in India). Frietjes (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 04:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start again -- 1990s in India is a substantive article. The annual ones seem to be list of events, which is legitimate. This one however seems to be "People from India notable in the 2000s", which does not make a useful article. At one period, WP had a lot of list articles, with redlinks that enabled needed artiocles to be identified. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron:, so you are suggesting a WP:TNT? Why do you think the version is "hopelessly irreparable"? --Tito☸Dutta 20:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- what would you save? Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you aware of events occurred in India in 2000s, then most probably you have also felt that the article has only the basic structure. The names and events mentioned there, mostly they are relevant, and you need to include those once again if you rewrite those. The article requires expansion and not deletion. TNT is not applicable. I am finding older versions of this article better than the current version, So, reversion might be another option too. --Tito☸Dutta 20:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- that old version is really no better. it's still just a list of people and groups with no context. you are better off just deleting it and starting from the year articles to compile an overview. Frietjes (talk) 21:31, 4 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) 16:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SOFIXIT. Per WP:BEFORE - "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." This can be saved and is part of a bigger series. Tag it for cleanup, or be bold and remove parts that aren't needed. Let WP:INDIA know about it, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- it actually isn't part of a larger series, since there is only one other decade article. no other article in Special:PrefixIndex/2000s_in is formatted this way. removing parts that are not needed would involve blanking the page. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- update, I removed the lists with no context, so now there is basically nothing left. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—with no prejudice against recreation. The 1990's article is a good example. The 2000's article today has two unsourced trivia facts in bullet form. There is no SOFIXIT when there's no content there to begin with. TNT seems appropriate here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:49, 17 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) 15:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan RoAne[edit]

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

This article seems to be promotional in nature, and it looks like this person does not meet notability guidelines. None of the references seem very reliable, almost all are promotional in nature. The WSJ article names her in passing, so maybe this counts as notable? Also, the creator, ScoringGoals14, seems very suspicious. Looking through the contribs, it feels like an experienced wiki editor created a new account just to create this article, but made a few very minor edits to other articles before and after creating this one so as to arouse less suspicion, and perhaps try to avoid being tagged as a new user on page curation? (which did still tag the user as new.) This would maybe suggest that it was created by a publicist of some sort? (This is pure speculation, but perhaps still important). Nevertheless, the main point is that this article seems overly promotional in tone, and does not source important parts (like the background.) At the very least, as a BLP article, the unreferenced stuff has to be stripped, and if that happened, there would be very little substance to this article anyway).

Benboy00 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Upon your suggestion, I have removed unreferenced content. I've worked on this a while and thought it was well-written and well-referenced. I'm still learning the process and would welcome any other advice on how to improve this page. ScoringGoals14 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely WP:PROMO. Going down the sources in order, the SF State University one is an ad listing for a course she's giving; the Fripp one is an article self-published by someone who calls herself RoAne's "marketing buddy". The Huffington Post one is actually a video produced by RoAne's publisher. The UT School Of Law one is an ad for an event. The NYU one is promo for an event. The Harper Collins one is from her publisher. The Publisher's Weekly one appears to be legitimately third-party... but it doesn't support the claim that it is being referenced against ("which was number one on Book of the Month Club’s Best Seller list and the Publisher's Weekly Best Seller list."); that information is not in the source. Then we're at the subject's own website. Then we have another third party site, but she's just one on a list of more than 80 speakers that at least some unnamed meeting planner praised. The next three to various publications are indeed third party sources, and do indeed verify that she has written for them, but articles by her (as opposed to articles about her) do not convey notability. Next is the Wall Street Journal, which does have a brief quote, but only half a sentence about her, not a conveyor of notability. The claim that she has been heard on NPR points to what appears to be merely local shows on two NPR affiliates, not on something syndicated across the nation. So if we strip away the puffery and the things not appropriately sourced, there's not much left here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment As the author has stripped most of the unsourced content (for example, the infobox is still unsourced), this article is now half bibliography, half listing of un-notable events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benboy00 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I certainly see the point of deleting any bio that starts out by describing the subject as a "thought leader", she is apparently a notable author. Worldcat shows that What do I say next is in 730 libraries, How to Work a Room is in 1187 counting both editions, and the others in several hundred also. one or more of her books have been translated into German, Dutch, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Polish. book Review index shows reviews in Publishers' weekly (multiple) , Booklist, Globe & Mail, Library journal (multiple),the WSJ ; Google news archive shows at least a dozen newspapers. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point that she may not fail notability, but the article in its current state seems like one that would likely be speedy deleted if someone tagged it with a WP:G11. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (chat) @ 21:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 21:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (cackle) @ 21:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (talk) @ 21:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (gab) @ 21:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blatant advertising. She may be notable, but it doesn't matter if the article reads like an advertisement. Some major adjustments must be made OR we will have to start over again. PrairieKid (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self promotional flim-flam. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Please review again. I have made several changes that address many of your concerns and added several reputable third-party references, mainly a Chicago Tribune piece from 1990 that supports the InfoBox, Background section intro sentence and best seller status. Please let me know how I can reword any further to highlight her notability and read less like an advertisement. ScoringGoals14 (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this is a BLP, I am now going to remove all unsourced information that was not removed in the last purge. Please note that this may significantly decrease the length of the article and possibly turn it into a stub. Benboy00 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)--[reply]

Comment After painstakingly reading through all 19 of the sources, it turns out that the information I intended to remove was not unsourced, it was just not cited properly. Please ensure that the citations point to the right articles, and cite references for all of the sections in the infobox. As far as I can see, all of the information in this article is now backed up by sources (although in many cases not particularly good ones, like a personal website for example). I still feel, however, that this article has quite a lot of irrelevant information, like the fact that she was named a favourite speaker in a non-notable magazine. I also still feel that the subject herself is non-notable, and despite edits, it still feels like an advert. Benboy00 (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The multitude of book reviews in reliable sources make it an unambiguous case of WP:AUTHOR #3. The article has been greatly improved during the AfD process. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added the citations to the reference for the infobox content. Please let me know if there are other improper cites. I've reviewed the rest and feel they are all in the right places. Thanks. ScoringGoals14 (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the quality of the article and the motivations of the author only really matter for borderline cases. This is not. I'll quote DGG above, "Worldcat shows that What do I say next is in 730 libraries, How to Work a Room is in 1187 counting both editions, and the others in several hundred also. one or more of her books have been translated into German, Dutch, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Polish. book Review index shows reviews in Publishers' weekly (multiple)" -- 730 and 1187 are both way above the normal library holding cut-offs for notability as a researcher. Plus the article continues to improve, rendering the quality arguments largely moot. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:46, 14 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) 15:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that this article is better sourced, the big problem for me is that it's mostly just a list of books shes written, organisations whove published her, and a list of clients. There no real content, and it still (to me), after multiple edits, screams "advert". I also have a problem with the last paragraph: Almost two thirds of those 23 items do not have a reliable (or indeed any) source. I have searched for sources on google, and have found several, but they are not particularly reliable. I have looked for many (though not all) of the articles that are presumably being referenced, but cannot find them. I also still have a problem with her personal website being source for a significant portion of this short article. Benboy00 (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the unsourced content from the area you mentioned. I also re-organized the content to highlight her notability as an author, which others have agreed is apparent. Additionally, I included two more references (one to the New York Times), for a total of 21 with only one coming directly from her site. Please let me know what else I can do to resolve this. Thanks. ScoringGoals14 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still in bad shape. It should be reduced to the lede and a few of the most widely-held books. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Keep and Stub. The WorldCat numbers mentioned above are correct, but context is important. While they would clearly demonstrate notability for academic books, they are not terribly impressive for mass market books and especially not for the "self-help" sector. (There are no established milestones that I'm aware of, but I would hazard at least a 10-fold difference between academic and self-help, implying 2K to 3K in required holdings, such as is typically the case for Deepak Chopra's books.) Much of the article is still an advert. For example, minutiae like giving a lecture are non-encyclopedic. In fact, almost all of the "Background" section, including the whole 2nd paragraph is blatant advert and should be deleted. The recitation of all her books takes up the rest of the article, making it look CV'ish, as well. Reducing it to the lede and a few of her top-held books would probably be the appropriate balance. Will cede right of first refusal to the interested parties here before taking on the task myself. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Bibliography and media appearance material is typical and normal in biography articles I disagree with the characterization as an "advert". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say remove the biblio, but rather advised giving it due size relative to the article. This would mean having just the 2 or 3 top books. Many BLPs suffer from barfing an entire CV onto the page, which the average reader is not interested in. As for "media appearance material", it is actually not typical. All you have to do is check any celebrity page and you'll find that most, if not all their appearances are not listed. Otherwise, that's all the article would consist of. This is the sort of WP:PUFF that we try to avoid because it is part and parcel of the type of work this subject makes a living at. The facts are that this person satisfies inclusion guidelines (barely, in my opinion) by virtue of book holdings, but nevertheless there's very little that can be written about her because there is very little WP:RS at the moment, as mentioned above. Stubbing is appropriate. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Of course representative media appearances are typically listed, they help establish context, in this case it is part of the persons career history; and of course we list full bibliographies on Wikipedia we even create separate bibliography pages if they get too long. So long as everything is reliably sourced and written in NPOV there is no problem. I'll be happy to take this as far as you want but this AfD page is not the right place to discuss these kinds of content issues (assuming it closes keep). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll likewise be happy to take this as far as you want, inappropriate challenge notwithstanding. Representative is, of course, the operative word. The problem is that this particular page seems to list all such instances for the apparent sole purpose of puffing-up the article. Moreover, we rarely list full biographies of authors, scientists, et al., because they're too long. For example, Eric Lander has published >500 scientific articles, but his bio lists only about a dozen representative examples to give the appropriate sourcing for the text. There simply isn't a lot to say about RoAne that is encyclopedic. Sorry, Agricola44 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Actually we do list complete bibliographies of books by regular authors. We'll trim science papers, journal articles etc but that is irrelevant, she is not an academic with >500 scientific articles. Nine books is not "too long". I can't wait for the RfC: "Should we list nine books or is that too long". Are you serious? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem unable to appreciate the fact that there are about 3 sentences of encyclopedic material here and that what you're proposing will mean that 95% of the article will consist of her bibliography. We're trying not to send WP back to its Pokemon days of having massive puff articles on topics of debatable notability. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Yes clearly this article is going to push Wikipedia back to the dark ages. Please stop the theatrics and stick to the point: this AfD is for discussing keeping or deleting the article. If there is content issue deal with it in the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if its appropriate to mention this here, but the creators editing habits still seem extremely suspicious. ScoringGoals14 edits in infrequent batches. These batches always include the Susan RoAne article, or the deletion page. All edits to other pages are just adding links which, while a helpful activity, is at the same time a bit odd. Why would someone make what is presumably a new account, only to add links to pages (and then create one page)? Could it be an IP contrib who found the urge to create a page? There seems to be no relationship between edited pages, varying from Slow programming to Redcurrent sauce, and almost all of the edits consist purely of adding square brackets to terms to turn them into wiki links, like this and this and this and so on. I'm surprised that there isnt a bot for that (maybe there is). I agree with Agricola44 in that the background section is pretty much an advert, but I actually think that much of the short lede is advertising, and I also just realised that for bits of it, the source doesn't say what the article says (for example, doesnt talk about publishers weekly, and there isn't anything about her being an "expert on face to face interaction", which sounds hugely like a marketing term. Also, thanks for the policy link. I deal with promotional BLP's quite a lot, and I never realised there were wp guidelines on it. Benboy00 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while we make no accusations, there are many worrisome signs of WP:COI, which almost always leads to a puffed-up article. The requirements for BLPs are very strict, especially with respect to sourcing. This article will have to be culled of puff if it is to be kept. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Even if it was COI (not established), it is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion. The perception of puffery is obviously being influenced by the perception of who wrote the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, signs present, but COI not conclusively established. I came in relatively late on this case and have no association with how it came to be at AfD. Nevertheless, once at AfD, an article routinely gets criticized in all kinds of ways – the more comprehensive scrutiny basically functions as an important WP quality control. Those articles that survive invariably emerge much better than when they went into AfD, in my experience. In this case, the puffery/advert aspect is present and obvious: "RoAne's clients include...[long list]", "She has been published in...[long list]", "She has also been heard on radio programs...", etc. These items are minutiae that are not only un-encyclopedic, but lack proper sourcing, e.g. they cite the "client list" at susanroane.com, the subject's own business website. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

If there is a sourcing problem we'll work on that. What you're missing is the context and relevancy of this information to the topic, what else would an encyclopedia article about this person be other than the type of information it contains. This isn't some major historical figure, the information is trite because the subject is trite (though notable by wikipedia standards), it's relevant information to the topic, it describes her career and adds context. The wording can change, the sourcing can change, maybe not all of it would be included, but the basics are ok. The contention that this should be stubified to a few sentences and two books doesn't hold, it does more damage than good. I too often see people attack perceived COI articles ruthlessly to the point of doing more harm than good. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you can see at the top, the main reason that I nominated the article for deletion was apparent lack of notability, massive promotionality, and lack of sources. The COI point was an added curiosity that I thought relevant, although if it turns out to be an actual COI, then that alone would be a reason to delete. Perhaps if the only information on a person is their client list for motivational books and presentations, they are not, in fact, notable? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI, then that alone would be a reason to delete.. no, it's not. Please read the rules. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. i did: WP:Autobiography the suspected COI is also the article creator, meaning if there is COI the article will likely be deleted. 2. theres no need to be rude... Benboy00 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first you said COI "alone would be a reason to delete", now you say "COI the article will likely be deleted". In fact what it actually says is something different. And it's not even a rule, rather an informative courtesy of what typically happens in certain situations. In short, there is no rule that COI are reason alone to delete. Thanks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cardamom: Let me understand this. You're admitting that the subject is more-or-less uninteresting ("trite", in your words), but you're still advocating for an article in expanded form. Sounds to me like special pleading for puffery. I think you're too focused on the COI. Like we all said, that hasn't been established. The puff/advertiness is the problem. I think any harm that will be done is to both the subject and to WP by violating BLP policies and leaving the article in its current state. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

"Pleading for puffery" lol You forget I have no association with this topic. I'm not a COI, I don't think the material is advertising, I'm advocating for it because I think it's appropriate for the topic. And now you're bringing up BLP ok whatever. Why don't you save your ammunition for the inevitable RfC and give the closing admin of this AfD a break from reading all this. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, in that comment Agricola was perfectly civil. Your response seems like it wasnt. BLP policy is extremely important generally, and obviously relevant as this is a BLP. The reason this article has been culled quite a bit is mainly due to the fact that its a BLP. I dont think Agricola is trying to attack you, he/she is just trying to understand an apparent inconsistency in your argument, something I too am interested in, as can be seen in my response to you above. Please try to remain WP:CIVIL and unemotionally involved. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is uncivil saying I am overly "emotional" (a personal attack). It's also instigating a fight that "Agricola is trying to attack [me]". I would really prefer that this conversation come to an end as it is clearly not going anywhere useful. It won't be resolved today and you'll have many opportunities to argue your case in the proper forum. I look forward to working with you. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no sign of incivility here. There seems to be an overreaction. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Well, what I mean is using terms like "lol" and "ok whatever". These would tend to provoke (or suggest) emotional involvement, which is not really conducive to debate. Also, suggesting that points (or "ammunition") should be "saved for the RfC" (paraphrasing) seems unhelpful. Surely all points should be discussed here, so that the closing admin can make the right call? It would seem like this is in fact the proper forum. I clearly did *not* say that agricola was trying to attack you, in fact I said the opposite. I am just trying to make sure that this debate stays on topic, rather than becoming people accusing each other of COI aomong other things (although I do think that the COI status of the original creator is still important). I did not mean for you to feel personally attacked, and I apologise if you feel offended. I think it would be best if we all just stepped back a bit and concentrated on the issue at hand. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reduced the bibliography section to be a selected listing per the comments. I'm new to Wikipedia and just trying to learn the process. If my posting is strange, I do apologize. When you first sign up the site guides you to change basic things like spelling or adding links and guides you through a series of random pages. I also enjoy that button on the sidebar. Based on the ongoing response to this article, I've stuck with the basic edits until I learn more about the process and resolve this one first. I truly want to avoid this type of reaction with future major edits. ScoringGoals14 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:BASIC. There may be numerous sources about her work, but apparently not about the subject herself. Also, I find the nomination statement rather BITEy, which is unfortunate. We ought to assume good faith. -- Trevj (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, it was after a long round of new articles patrol. Benboy00 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. -- Trevj (talk) 18:12, 1 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) 02:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Thomas Bryan[edit]

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

I cannot see the notability here. He was a student at Christian Brothers College and was killed in France in 1917. Very tragic, but millions were killed in the trenches in France, there does not seem to be anything exceptional in this one death. Possibly he could be mentioned in the CBC article, but I will post the current contents of the article to the CBC talk page and leave it to editors there to decide. That way this AFD does not need to get distracted with the possibility of a merge. Spinning Spark 14:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non notable. The article was created by an indefinitely blocked user who campaigned disruptively creating numerous now-deleted non-notable articles related to Aquinas College, Perth. This is another one. I just learned about it today while researching this AfD and have no bias against the user or Aquinas College. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Green Cardamom Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is only for being a pupil at a school and a junior officer killed in the First World War. Which is nowhere near notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alen Seed[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. CSD contested by User:Alenseed, who may or may not be the subject of the article. Ish dar ian 13:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The article has no reliable sources and appears promotional, linking to a sales site and the subject's webpage only. Agree it fails WP:MUSIC. Alen Seed is "working on" his debut album and has released only one digital single which has received no feedback. Soranoch (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm finding social networking profiles (e.g., Twitter, Bandcamp), but no coverage found in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 17:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Ware (TV journalist)[edit]

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

Lacks notability Loginnigol (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable journalist with a long career including high profile positions and awards. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ditto, very strange article to nominate for deletion. Needs a tidy but there's no way he lacks notability. Tiller54 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprised to see this nominated for deletion, notable journalist. --Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for example as a presenter of notable programmes. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No hesitation on this; long distinguished journalism career, and even barring that his daughters would assure this would remain a redirect at the very least. Nate • (chatter) 08:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article] explains some of his notability/notoriety in recent times. By itself, it's perhaps enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is obvious with awards and a lengthy career. The article does need improvement but this a WP:Snowball.Crtew (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wong Kiew Kit. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolin Wahnam Institute[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating for deletion, primarily on notability grounds. The original AfD debate in 2009 closed with a Redirect to Wong Kiew Kit (who I do think passes notability) and was reverted to full article soon after. The issues from that time are essentially the same.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt until an editor can present a reliable secondary source. I agree with Peter that Wong Kiew Kit's notability is established - unfortunately with the web-based claim of “Qi Gong Master of the Year". I would feel better if any of this subject material had a reference from a book or a martial arts magazine. jmcw (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wong Kiew Kit again and protect. There doesn't seem to be anything to suggest that things have changed since the last AFD. Stalwart111 14:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is clearly an effort to update and improve things. If secondary sources can be added this article will be fine. Anre8 (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC) — Anre8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well, yeah, that's pretty much the case with most articles nominated for deletion. If there were enough secondary sources, they would be okay, but there aren't so they are nominated. Do you have any secondary sources? Stalwart111 23:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there is a problem with a picture that's too big or with external links, those can be changed by individual edits. There are more secondary sources than the Straits Times artcile(Inside Kung Fu article, Irish Times article); the source simply needs to be written in a more proper format.M (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)— Markblohm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There are many, many, many problems with the article but none so big as a basic lack of notability. The Straits Times article is written by the founder - hardly "independent" - and the other articles you mention aren't available. One is behind a paywall and the other is unlinked. Normally, that wouldn't be a problem but through a pea soup fog of promo-spam and single purpose accounts you're asking us to take your word for it that those articles, 1. say what you say they say; and, 2. provide the subject with sufficient depth of coverage to confer notability. Almost all of the other "sources" are completely valueless in terms of notability but the ones that can save the article just happen to be the ones nobody can access? Hmm... maybe not. Stalwart111 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"just happen to be the ones nobody can access?" These sources are just as accessible as a book is.M (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a subscription to the Irish Times (and so have access to the text to cite it in the article and here as evidence of notability) then by all means tell us what it says. Likewise, if you have a copy of the magazine in question. Happy to assume good faith but your conduct so far (including the off-Wikipedia canvassing and meat-puppetry that I've raised at ANI) doesn't inspire much confidence. Stalwart111 03:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has developed to become a top provider of information for internet users. On the other hand, it is a fact that Shaolin Wahnam Institute is a worldwide school with thousands of students in all the six continents of the world. If someone who may have his own interest complains about the Shaolin Wahnam Institute entry in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia deletes the page, it will make Wikipedia grossly incomplete in providing information.M (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but to determine what information we provide to users we employ policies and guidelines that help us to decide whether subjects are notable enough for inclusion. This article does not meet the criteria outlined in those policies and guidelines. Stalwart111 06:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inside Kung Fu Magazine, Tai Chi Union for Great Britain and International Kung Fu Federation. These are just a few off-hand secondary sources that I can find at the moment. Leeweijoo (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Leeweijoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry, but neither of the first two would be considered independent enough - both are interviews with the Institute's founder, talking about the Institute and referring people back to his own websites. The third is a very short biography of the founder with a passing mention of the Institute. Definitely not "significant coverage". Stalwart111 05:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I've semi-protected this AFD due to this notice.—Kww(talk) 05:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt or Redirect and protect The Irish Times link is used for this major claim:" Within the last 15 years, the school has spread worldwide and includes thousands of students." Sounds good, eh? But what is it? My Highbeam subscription has expired, but I found this[20] which has been republished here.[21]. The author is obviously no expert on the subject, simply a believer, and there is no mention of the school being spread worldwide and having thousands of students. The claim "Instructors under Wong teach in many countries around the world" is sourced to [22] which doesn't make the claim and is an interview with someone running classes. The Institute mentioned no longer exists[23] [24] and the structure is still a hope.[25] I can see no sources establishing notability. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also dubious about the International Kungfu Federation as a source and have raised this at WP:RSN. Wong Kiew Kit is notable, but using his home page as the source of a definitive statement in Wikipedia that he "is the 4th generation successor of Jiang Nan of the Southern Shaolin Monastery"? Maybe that article needs a cleanup. By the way, why are we using this blog[26] as a source for the first line? To find sources not directly from the Institute? Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt or restore redirect and protect - per rationale of nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is an advertisement.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wong Kiew Kit I think the first AfD got it right. I can't find the independent coverage required to show this school is notable. Since the consensus is that Wong Kiew Kit is notable, I would redirect this article on the school he founded to his article (where it is already mentioned). Papaursa (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect per first AfD result - a redirect is appropriate, an article is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NoticeThis discussion has been taken to dispute resolution Peter Rehse (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute resolution filing has been closed. DRN does not accept requests about disputes at AfD. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as DRN volunteer) TransporterMan (TALK) 15:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyright violation. (WP:G12) Singularity42 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meghnad Saha Hall of Residence[edit]

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

A contested PROD. Original concern was "Some notability is asserted, but none is verified. Halls of residence generally should be a part of the academic institution they are a hall for, assuming that is what this is. But the article doesn't explain this in any meaningful manner." I also tried to help, but couldn't find any news sources to verify the subject's notability. Minima © (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking notability. An acceptable outcome is to reidirect, merging anything salvageable, to the educational establishment it is part of, assuming one can be found. Fiddle Faddle 11:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Speedy Delete as copyvio of http://www.msites.in/ from the About tab. Fiddle Faddle 11:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing that the content from the about tab is copied from www.msites.in but it is only because both the website and the wikipedia page indicate the information of the same thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghunandhanreddy (talk • contribs)

Reply Read WP:COPYRIGHTS. Fiddle Faddle 11:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Conjowa[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:RS. This is definitely not a notable film and is not backed-up by reliable sources. NoyPiOka (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks to be a non-notable student production from what I can see. While it looks like it'd be great fun, it just doesn't pass notability guidelines for films and looks to be unlikely to pass notability guidelines in the near future. I hope that the film does well, but Wikipedia is not a place to promote your film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFF. Has NO coverage... but IF this gets suitable coverage after its October release, the article can be undeleted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasons. I prodded this earlier, but obviously the author objected.— •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 03:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Student films are almost never notable unless they have received significant, reliable coverage. This film hasn't. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion, A9, non-notable album ... discospinster _talk 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mon Petit Punk (LD13)[edit]

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

Hoax. Not a single reliable source indicates that this album exists. There is a long-term vandalism issue over Adrian Visby and his creations (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Horizontal Law and WP:Articles for deletion/Adrian Visby). It is unclear whether this person exists at all, but if he does, he is certainly not notable, and therefore his compilation album of Marc Ribot songs is also not notable (if it even exists). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. The article is simply trying to promote a non-notable musician's remix. Ish dar ian 14:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of instant runoff voting to other voting systems[edit]

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

Delete Superfluous. The sole purpose of this fork is to give a pretext for a POV version of the instant-runoff voting article. There is no "comparison of plurality voting to other voting systems" article and no "comparison of top-two runoff voting to other voting systems" article, although these voting systems are more wide spread than instant-runoff voting. There is no "comparison of proportional representation to single-winner districts" article, although such an article would be more interesting. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination). Markus Schulze 09:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ideally there should be an article Voting systems that explains the differences between all the different systems, and tells why some are preferred over others. It should also do it in a way that is easy for the readers to follow. Also the unusual formating of this article makes it hard for editors to add to it. BayShrimp (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Markus Schulze, hopelessly unhelpful article. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. Not speedy as the full discussion period has passed. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncut (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable band. See [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], and WP:BEFORE. --Michig (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised to see any of those, because they didn't show up with my normal search method, which as Google news search using archives search (results). Sven Manguard Wha? 22:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A lot of sources won't include the word 'band' or may include the word in a different context. If you search for [Uncut "Ian Worang"], you'll get a lot more relevant results. This might be useful. --Michig (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gong show 17:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per Michig. Apologies. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Etymology of Wicca. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy bunny[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I came across this as a WP:G4 speedy, but declined it since the current version has more sourcing and slightly more content. Because of that, and that the previous AfD had been in 2006, I thought that this would benefit more from getting a more full discussion at AfD. There are some sources in the article that look legit, but also some that fall under blog sources. My predominant concern is that this is essentially a dictionary definition when you get down to it and would be better served as an entry in Wiktionary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were concerns about it being a neologism at the last AfD and I can see where this might be concerns about this years later. I've heard the term and am familiar with it, so I wouldn't entirely consider it a new neologism. I'm more concerned about this being essentially a dictionary definition when you get down to it. I'm open to persuasion about keeping the article, in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just need some good argument that this goes beyond a dictionary definition that could be summed up in a few lines on Wiktionary and maybe as a subsection at Wicca. I'll try to clean this up as best as possible, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm leaning now towards merging to Etymology_of_Wicca#Increasing_popularisation_and_reaction:_1990.E2.80.932010 as opposed to Wicca in general, as there's a good jumping off point for this to be merged there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wicca. Passing mentions and self-published rants don't really satisfy the WP:GNG, though it's certainly a common phrase. Unfortunately, I doubt that we're going to rise above Urban Dictionary's coverage of the term, so I suggest a merge. It's a legitimate topic for that article, and a few sentences won't hurt anything. As a standalone article, it's a bit iffy at best. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wicca as suggested above. A common wiccan neologism but a neologism nonetheless. The phrase itself doesn't have a lot of meaning - just a description of certain types of practitioners - and so its unlikely there will ever be in depth coverage of the phrase itself. Stalwart111 14:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wicca. Well, this feels very light as an article, so deletion is worth considering. However, there are some probably-acceptable sources as well as some self-published ones (some quotes in the references would make it easier to judge whether they are reliable in this case). The long list of light, jokey, semi-pejorative synonyms is not good for the article's case, as it makes it seem more like a slang dictionary or perhaps Wiktionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. The suggested merge to Wicca seems sensible as the references are probably sufficient to sustain a brief mention of the term. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above suggestions that this term doesn't support enough for its own page. In the first ten pages of Google News, there was only a single reference [42] to "fluffy bunny" as something Wicca-related. There were several more (including [43], [44], and [45]) referring to a computer hacker or group of hackers. However, most references to a "fluffy bunny" were to... actual fluffy bunnies. The first four pages of a standard Google search returned pretty much the same, with only Urban Dictionary and the SPS referenced in the article's lede using it as a Wiccan term. So I suggest merge content to Wicca, but redirect title to Rabbit. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Well, I hadn't thought to redirect it to rabbit, as I strongly associate the phrase with Wicca, but I suppose that's a valid redirect. I suppose the disambiguation page might even be better target. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably go with the disambiguation page itself since there are at least three uses of the term itself. If this is the common verdict, I'd recommend that the disambiguation page gets moved to Fluffy bunny and maybe, maybe a hatnote on the rabbit article, although I've included a mention on the overall bunny disambiguation page. Since merging seems to be a fairly common consensus so far, I'll start trying to work on a small section for the term. I actually found a pretty good section to merge it into: Etymology_of_Wicca#Increasing_popularisation_and_reaction:_1990.E2.80.932010. There's already mention of Traditional Witches vs Gardnerianism, so this would be fairly easily merged into that section with little awkwardness. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds good to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me either. Stalwart111 02:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good solution. I can support this. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin: Since the overwhelming consensus is to merge and redirect, I've merged some of the pertinent data at Etymology_of_Wicca#Increasing_popularisation_and_reaction:_1990.E2.80.932010. I would recommend creating a redirect of Fluffy bunny (pejorative) for any users specifically searching for that term, then including that on the disambiguation page for fluffy bunny, which should be moved to the basic "fluffy bunny" term rather than have it as "fluffy bunny (disambiguation)". I can do the cleanup for this if necessary, but I want to avoid any COI with the close of the AfD if possible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Created the redirect, so all that needs to be done from this point is delete the fluffy bunny article up for deletion, move the disambiguation page to this name, and then change the name on what will now be the basic FB page to the redirect I just created. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless the merged content is reworded (and revision deleted?) we can't delete Fluffy bunny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Therefore can't it just be closed as redirect? -- Trevj (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'd make more sense to move the disambiguation page to just "fluffy bunny". Typically we don't keep disambiguation pages with the text (disambiguation) after it if there's nothing at the main search term of just "fluffy bunny" and it'd just redirect to a disambiguation page in general. It's sort of superfluous. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that means doing a history merge of Fluffy bunny (disambiguation) into Fluffy bunny then, doesn't it? Neither can be deleted but they can be combined and Fluffy bunny (disambiguation) could redirect and be left unused. -- Trevj (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why the history merge? Fluffy bunny is a completely different page and wasn't, to my knowledge, ever used as a disambiguation page. There would be no need to preserve the history. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for creating a bit of a storm in a teacup... I actually came here because it was one of the backlogged items which needed closing! Anyway, doesn't the history need preserving (to preserve attribution) because some of this content of Fluffy bunny was copied to Etymology of Wicca with this edit? -- Trevj (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I gotcha. I thought that there was usually a history of deleted edits that were preserved when you did a move? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about that. Anyway, thanks for offering to do the cleanup!

-- Trevj (talk) 09:46, 2 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 Compartmental models in epidemiology. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized Epidemic Mean-Field Model[edit]

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

Fails notability, based on a single as yet unpublished paper. Gareth Jones (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 12 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) 02:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - this does look very much like self-publicity. A Google Scholar search turns up the paper by Sahneh et al, which appears now to have been published, and basically nothing else. The title seems to have been invented by the paper's authors, so WP:NEO would apply to it as a search term. The paper itself could be used as a source in other articles but is not sufficient for an article on its own. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Compartmental models in epidemiology. This article is about a single paper, recently accepted for publication, but is still in the queue for putting ink to paper. I could find no other sources for this topic, so the topic falls below threshold for notability, per WP:GNG. The main author of the article is also an author on the paper, so there are conflict of interest issues, per WP:COI. But the paper, being accepted, is a reliable source and the topic is verifiable. Mean field models, more of a physicists' term, are also called compartmental models in epidemiology. While 'generalized', the model is still a compartmental model with a bit more elaborate network. It's reasonable to add a summary of this to Compartmental models in epidemiology and the topic is a reasonable search term, so a redirect is warranted as well. --Mark viking (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable and informed, happy to go along with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SpongeBob SquarePants (season 8). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghoul Fools[edit]

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

This episode does not meet WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 19:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 13 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) 02:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally non-notable. A search on Google indicates that nowhere is this episode being talked about except on episode guides. It has no special guest stars, no special issues, nothing at all of note. --Captain Infinity (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will disagree to the above comments. The episode is actually a half-hour television special meaning it's notable in its own merit, also, it's also one of those SpongeBob episodes that is double-length. I learned that this episode is part of Nickelodeon's Halloween event called "10 Nights of Frights". It also have a special guest star called Chris Elliot. Yes, the article is really lacking sources to verify its notability but it will take some time to research. For now, I'll !vote a redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 8). Mediran (t • c) 06:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Televison "specials" are not inherently notable. Nick's Halloween events are not notable. Double-length episodes are not notable. Chris Elliot's voice is not notable. Notability requires "Significant coverage" from reliable sources. This episode has no coverage at all. However, I would support a redirect as it would preserve the history of the page. --Captain Infinity (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as it's not notable as of yet. News search produced nothing. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vajra Enterprises. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet: The Roleplaying Game[edit]

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

This doesn't meet notability guidelines in the slightest. I can't find any reliable sources on the game. Pretty self explanatory. It seems to be a non-notable indie RPG game, which is fine and all, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Inanygivenhole (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This could also be merged into parent article Vajra Enterprises. Inanygivenhole (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 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) 02:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vajra Enterprises. Not notable, but there's room for some of this information in the parent article. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NCC Environmental Services[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Triplestop (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 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) 02:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find one 3rd party reference, now in the article, but insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Million Second Quiz. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kravis[edit]

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

Blatant WP:BLP1E violation. No indication of notability outside of The Million Second Quiz. A redirect to The Million Second Quiz would be more appropriate (and is my suggested course of action). RJaguar3 | u | t 02:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As I said on my accidental 2nd nomination, BLP1E applies here. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Million Second Quiz. It's a viable enough search term, but I don't see where Kravis has any individual notability at this point in time. Sometimes people such as Ken Jennings do gain notability for performing extremely well on a game show, but it's relatively rare. In most cases the people in question tend to never gain coverage beyond that point. If Kravis gains more coverage beyond that point he can have his own article, but at this time it's just premature. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with redirect to MSQ under heading of "Champion". Turns out that Kravis competed on TV as a teen on Jeopardy, later on "Millionaire" and "Wheel of Fortune". Not a big-money winner until now. A google search on "Andrew Kravis" proves fruitful. Watch for stories in People, TIME, etc. Schweiwikist (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to The Million Second Quiz#Winner. Agree with BLP1E. AldezD (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Redirected to The Million Second Quiz#Winner unless he becomes notable for somthing outside the show. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guy won quiz shows as a kid, and has the world record for highest amount of money won in game show. Those two facts seem notable now. 04:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Fairly OddParents (season 4). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

School's Out! The Musical[edit]

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

This episode has no sources or references, all nothing but excessive plot or fancruft. JJ98 (Talk) 19:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A few sources seem to exist: New York Times, IGN, DVD Verdict, and a few subscription-only hits on Google news. I don't think this is enough to establish notability, but maybe someone can comment on the subscription-only Gnews hits. If they turn out to be useful, then I'll vote to keep it. That IGN article is really short and arguably trivial, which makes finding more (and better) sources important. If nobody can come up with more hits, then I'm leaning toward deletion.NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Fairly OddParents (season 4). I was hoping that someone else would find some more references beyond my own meager results, but it doesn't seem likely. Maybe this is enough for a weak keep, but I'd rather feel more confident about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 13 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) 02:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge short plot summary into The Fairly OddParents (season 4) As with all of Nickelodeon's so-called 'movies' for their animated shows in the 2000's, this was just an extended double-length episode and boy, the cruft is heavy with this one, especially the unsourced airing information nobody except the Nickcruft obsessives actually care about. Nate • (chatter) 07:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect searchable title to List of The Fairly OddParents episodes as was done with earlier similar AFDs. The sources found and offered above by NinjaRobotPirate have this just meet WP:NF. It really does not have to have the same spectacular level of coverage as Star Wars just so long as we have enough to meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passages Malibu[edit]

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

Non-notable organization and simply a commercial advertisement for a rehabilitation center. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passages is pretty well known as an addiction rehab facility, and there's quite a bit of objective (even negative) reliable-source coverage already in this article, so I don't think it's fair to call this purely an advertisement. I do think the separate article about the Ventura facility could be merged here; no real need for two articles, that I can see. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. I cannot see any possible motivation for keeping this article beyond creating POV on one side of the fence or another of a subject that is barely notable. A commercial on late-night television does not a notable subject make, and Passages is hardly "well known". This treatment facility is only controversial with persons such as a former patient or employee, or anybody who espouses a different method of treatment. What is their method of treatment, anyway? It's not covered in the article. Nor are treatment statistics, nor, actually, any solid data, whatsoever. The article was originally written as an advertisement. The most notable thing about this facility is the obviously extortionist rate they charge, which varies on a regular basis (more often than this article will be updated), and the self-promotion of its formerly-addicted founder, who claims to have both been an addict and to not believe in addiction. This article is supporting hogwash. 50.134.205.209 (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 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) 02:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the coverage is significant enough to demonstrate notability here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Passages Malibu. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passages Ventura[edit]

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

Non notable organization and simply a commercial advertisement for a rehabilitation center. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Passages Malibu and possibly rename; a notable addiction rehab facility (per my comments in the other AfD), but I don't perceive a need for two separate articles for the two facilities. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 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) 02:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Passages Malibu. Insufficient notability for independent article from parent subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Zammit[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO significant award ("one of the country’s top honours"[46]) plus all the other recognitions and press coverage. Youth volunteers can be notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:24, 16 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) 02:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's not a great deal of coverage online, but just enough to sustain an article, I think, and the Order of Australia medal tips the balance. The article as it stands is a bit peacocky though, and the long list of obscure awards should be trimmed. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A trim wouldn't go amiss, but the sources provided in the article meet the minimum requirements of WP:GNG, and as Green Cardamom says, the subject meets WP:ANYBIO by virtue of the Order of Australia Medal . Yunshui 雲‍水 12:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Features of the Marvel Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wundagore[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transia. Both articles will be stronger for such a merge. bd2412 T 15:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Features of the Marvel Universe or Transia, depending on whether or not Transia is deleted. There are a few hits on Google Books for this, enough that we should include it in the encyclopedia, but all are trivial mentions so we don't need a stand-alone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:32, 15 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) 02:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Munster Senior League (association football). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blarney United F.C.[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I don't believe participation in the FAI Cup makes them notable. May just pass WP:NFOOTY but still fails WP:GNG in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Think you may have made a small error here. WP:NFOOTY refers only to players, not clubs. The relevant subject specific guideline is the similarly named WP:FOOTYN, for which I believe the club notability guidelines are still valid. They do quite clearly state that clubs that have played in the national cup are assumed to meet WP:N. Fenix down (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It passes WP:FOOTYN as you point out, but I can only find a report about the FAI Cup 2nd round draw, no match report - I don't believe that this can be called 'significant coverage' to meet WP:GNG. JMHamo (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Munster Senior League (association football) as I don't think one match in a cup contested by semi-pro/amateur teams ie enough when it appears to fail GNG so comprehensively. Giant Snowman 17:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:45, 14 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) 02:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Changed my view as per GS. No indication that the club have played more than 1 match in a national competition. A technical NFOOTY pass but a general GNG failure. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Nájera[edit]

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

Being the author of two self-published books and getting occasional mentions in local press is insufficient evidence of notability. Other than that, this article is basically a resume. bd2412 T 18:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 14 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) 02:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with bd2412's analysis. -sche (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was City Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City Wok[edit]

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

Article fails WP:CORP (tagged since 2010), and no sources show that the in-universe restaurant in South Park episode plots is directly related to this real-world company. Any details about the in-universe City Wok from South Park is contained within that episode article's plot description. AldezD (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only source I found was this, which is a press release. Keep per sources found by Taylor Trescott. Delete I apologize for flip-flopping like this, but it seems Ibadibam is right about CORPDEPTH: "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." --Cerebellum (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per these sources: [47] [48] [49] [50] Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New sources provided fail WP:CORPDEPTH#Audience. Nor do these sources identify any notable feature about this chain; they're just routine local restaurant reviews. Ibadibam (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Failing WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't mean it doesn't fail the GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CORPDEPTH defines what qualifies as "significant coverage" for WP:GNG, as far as businesses and organizations are concerned. And WP:GNG only establishes a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. The sources presented must themselves demonstrate the subject's notability, which these don't. Ibadibam (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To nom's concern about South Park being related to it: it is, Trey Parker and Matt Stone discuss the inspiration being from the real-life chain on several commentaries. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If this can be verified, it may demonstrate that the chain has made a significant cultural contribution and is thus notable. Could you provide a source? Ibadibam (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. It's in the commentary for Jared Has Aides (read the production section) and, since commentaries are used as sources in FAs, they're probably reliable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - So it is. That's one point for keeping it. Ibadibam (talk) 20:58, 20 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) 02:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Outside of the nominator, there are no calls for the article's deletion. The consideration of the article's notability by those who joined the discussion offers an affirmation of the article's notability, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Any perceived shortcoming can be addressed with editorial input and referencing; removing the article from the website appears to be an extreme solution. A non-admin disclosure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chakra (operating system)[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chakra Linux

Articles for deletion/Chakra (operating system)

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

Discussion at the talk page has highlighted the lack of notability; the few reliable sources that exist are brief reviews on websites that review any and every distro that requests it; this doesn't show notability. Having an entry on DistroWatch doesn't show notability because you can simply buy your way into DistroWatch, and the rankings are based on pageviews and does not attribute towards notability. This article's subject fails WP:GNG and comes nowhere close to meeting WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Chakra (operating system) was already reviewed for notability in a previous AfD discussion (21 October 2011). The result of the discussion was keep. Kevjonesin (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editors involved in current talk-page discussion — other than Aoidh — have expressed the opinion that the article is notable and/or that notable reliable references exist. Kevjonesin (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your note is unnecessary, as the previous AfD is already linked at the right, and your assertion that it was "already reviewed for notability" is flat-out wrong. Poor assertions from the article's creator KAMiKAZOW does not "review notability"; and an article being kept at AfD does not mean an article is notable, especially an AfD from years ago; previous AfDs do not preclude the question of notability, which needs to be established; citing a previous AfD with poor reasoning from 2011 does not negate that. - Aoidh (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What Aoidh “forgot” to mention is that the article in question also covers KDEmod which in itself was also very popular before the project renamed itself to Chakra and turned Arch+KDEmod into a stand-alone distribution.[51] Publications such as The H also found Chakra notable enough to report on it[52][53] (and no, The H does not cover every distro under the sun).

The claim that Chakra bought popularity is a libelous claim without anything to back it up. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if you're going to claim that something is "libelous", it would help if you would actually read what you're citing; nobody came anywhere close to claiming that "Chakra bought popularity". Secondly, the KDEmod bit still doesn't make this subject somehow notable without sources showing as much. The H's brief reviews (and yes, there are countless) do not show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I added the template with the previous AFD because it wasn't included with the original nomination. Cheers, Stalwart111 05:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability establised by [54], [55] and [56]. ~KvnG 03:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few brief reviews do not establish notability, as evidenced by consensus at other AfDs whose articles only had such reviews. They are fine for reliable sources, but not all reliable sources show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting there is not significant coverage in these articles. I don't know how you can make such a claim. The articles are directly about Chakra. There's not a requirement that they be feature articles or of a certain length. What's required is that a reliable source found the topic worthy of writing about. What happened at another AfD is not of direct concern here and I can't tell what sources were examined in that AfD because the comments are terse and the article has been deleted. ~KvnG 14:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I disagree. - Aoidh (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Linux User and LinuxInsider are both established magazines which have been around for about 15 years and which have a reputation for editorial oversight. The fact that each of them dedicated a review to Chakra is (barely) enough to establish its notability. (I don't understand why User:Aoidh dismisses them as "brief"; they're just as long as most software, book, film, and theatre reviews in any other reliable periodical.) The other sources mentioned here and in the article are not reliable: DistroWatch lists anything and everything, taking OS descriptions from user-submitted content with little or no editorial oversight; Muktware, despite advertising itself as an "online magazine", is too new and obscure to have developed a reputation as anything other than a one-man blog; IIRC all the other references in the article are either to primary sources or to personal blogs. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — Indications of notability:
- Chakra has been a featured topic on Jupiter Broadcasting's 'The Linux Action Show'. Note: LAS is not a 'vlog' but rather an internationally viewed program with major commercial sponsors (like GoDaddy and Ting)...
http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/13308/arch-made-easy-las-s19e03/

jupiterbroadcasting.com site metrics (42,693 monthly visits):

http://urlm.co/www.jupiterbroadcasting.com
- While merely being listed on DistroWatch may not be considered noteworthy, perhaps Chakra's ranking in the top 10–20% over the last year might be?
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity
- Chakra on LinuxInsider
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/77685.html

A bit about LinuxInsider:

http://www.linkedin.com/company/ect-news-network/linuxinsider-1547323/product
- Chakra on LinuxUser & Developer:
http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/reviews/chakra-linux-review-kde-and-arch-make-for-a-winning-combination

About Linux User & Developer:

http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/about
- Chakra on LinuxBSDos.com:
http://www.linuxbsdos.com/2013/02/19/chakra-2013-02-benz-review/

About LinuxBSDos.com:

http://www.linuxbsdos.com/about/

LinuxBSDos.com site metrics (75,304 monthly visits):

http://urlm.co/www.linuxbsdos.com
- Chakra on Muktware:
http://www.muktware.com/articles/3165/chakra-review-arch-fork-mortals

About Muktware:

http://www.muktware.com/4647/about-us

Muktware site metrics (64,402 monthly visits):

http://urlm.co/www.muktware.com
- That Chakra gets referred to multiple times on StackExchange seems to indicate that the distro is notable within the Linux/Computer tech community: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
About StackExchange:

http://stackexchange.com/about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Exchange_Network
- Here's one of the many reviews found using Google Search. InfinitelyGalactic's youtube channel—which focuses on reviewing Linux distros—has a review of Chakra which has received—as of today—21,848 views:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmbjx1Nz8Bc#t=60
- While any one Linux/tech blog or youtube channel may not by itself establish notability, I think the fact that many such make mention of Chakra deserves considerationy when viewed collectively. In fact, I would say that if many people are feeling a need to make mention of something, then that 'something' is by definition notable (at least in a de facto sense).

* Wikipedia:NSOFT#Inclusion

"Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: ...The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field... ...The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews..."

Wikipedia:NSOFT#Reliability_and_significance_of_sources

"Common sense and an awareness of historical context should be used in determining whether coverage in sources found for software is in fact reliable and significant... ...It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software..."

Wikipedia:NSOFT#Exceptions

"As with other essays and guidelines, this article is not intended to consider all circumstances. If in doubt, remember that rules are principles intended to guide decisions and that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy..."

[Yes, obviously I'm cherry-picking the aspects I prefer to emphasize, but please note that I'm only able to do so because they exist.]

It is all of the above factors taken together, collectively, which lead me to endorse a Strong Keep.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR aside, which source are you claiming suggests that this subject is "significant in its particular field"? - Aoidh (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your question suggests you probably missed the "any one" part of the criteria. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He omitted all the other criteria but purposefully included that one, which suggests that he believes it meets that criteria, so no, I did not miss that. - Aoidh (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given its presence in a number of WP:RS. I'll add one more to the list: MuyLinux (a very big Linux site in Spanish) Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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