< 20 September	22 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 speedy delete. Speedy deletion G5 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Sadia[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. The article may also be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G5 as there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation into the articles creator. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - while the articles are about topics that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, they can be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:56, 28 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) 04:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irregular Webcomic![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)

Fails WP:WEB. Creator's article was deleted. Only sources are primary (the comic itself, an interview) or not reliable (Web Snark, a wiki, Modern Tales). Last AFD from 2006 somehow closed as "keep" with nothing but "It's notable because it's notable" arguments. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I want to note that the standards for passing notability were notoriously loose back in 2006. Something could pass just by existing, which isn't the case now. There are blog hits and other things that can't be seen as a RS on Wikipedia, but otherwise this is ultimately a webcomic that falls short of our notability guidelines. All I can find are passing mentions and a few trivial articles like this one. The problem is that while it's popular, popularity isn't notability. There are a large amount of webcomics that have extremely huge followings and even support their artists, yet don't actually pass notability guidelines because they haven't gotten the coverage in RS. Heck, a good example of a popular web thing would be Marble Hornets. It's a wildly popular YT series and is considered to be one of THE definitive Slender Man inspired web series out there. Yet it's never gained enough coverage to merit an article, much to my chagrin. That's a great example of how popularity doesn't automatically mean notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of this is because webcomics and webseries - perhaps less now than in the past, but it's still there - get "shunned" by 'traditional media' that makes up the majority of RSes for the fact of not having a 'real-world' presence. I've argued before that we need to account for this somehow with a WP:NWEBCOMICS, as things like IWC and, as you mentioned, Marble Hornets, pass the WP:COMMONSENSE test as "things that are wildly popular on the web and that readers are likely to come here searching for information about" - but which fail WP:N as it stands due to their being ignored by the sources that make up the RS pool, through accident or, unfortunatly, design. The catch of course is that I'm not sure how this could be done without opening the floodgates; while IMHO the GNG has become too strict a Holy Writ over the years (oft forgetting that WP:NOTPAPER) there does have to be some standard that isn't just "I know it when I see it". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Tokyogirl79 pretty much said it all. More stringent notability policies today sometimes result in the deletion of popular topics that lack reliable sources. Notability isn't popularity or importance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 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) 04:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Slipchenko[edit]

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

On notability grounds. This article was a self-authorship - none of the championships appear to be notable. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be an autobiography with no independent sources to meet WP:GNG. None of the championships he won are sourced and I couldn't find him mentioned at the WAKO or IFMA (amateur Muay Thai organization) websites--except for a listing at the 2001 WAKO world amateur championships (when he would have been a junior at 17) showing he finished 2nd of 2 competitors in a Muay Thai division. That doesn't show notability nor does his undocumented IFMA results since WP:KICK says "Kickboxers that have an amateur background exclusively are not considered notable unless the person has been the subject examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local publications." That essentially means he needs to meet WP:GNG and he clearly doesn't, at least as far I can tell. Papaursa (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. We can't demotivate the young aspiring athlete by putting up article in him yet. Needs room for achievements) Ukrained2012 (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. Most sources are primary or don't mention him and title claims are all unsupported. Even if he did win those titles, he doesn't appear to meet WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 17:06, 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 - however I have userfied the article in case any of the additional material here is useful for the Chabad article (and provided a consensus exists for its inclusion). Euryalus (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebbes of Chabad[edit]

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

This page is a blatant content fork of Chabad, and also jumbles all the "rebbes" – dynastic and otherwise – into one synthesized hash. Recommend speedy delete. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being mainly a fork of Chabad. This article also mentions rebbes from other Chabad offshoots, like Kopust (not Kapust), which are not Lubavitch, but that seems arbitrary, and the need for such a list (which is basically all this article is) and such a grouping unclear. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per Debresser above, as this is clearly a violation of WP:CONTENTFORK. In any case, Category:Rebbes of Lubavitch already does the job and is more than sufficient as a collection of this information. IZAK (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Category:Rebbes of Lubavitch does not include offshoots of Chabad. On the page there are currently 3 branches listed, Strashelye, Kopost, and Liadi. I know that there are at least another 2 branches of Chabad similar to Liadi (as Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn had 4 sons who assumed the position of rebbe), plus there is the Malachim.

The main Chabad page is pretty long as it is and content could be summarized on that page and placed on the new page instead.

Changing the category might be another option. But please remember that a page or category including just the Rebbes of Lubavitch is the Chabad-Lubavitch POV. The NPOV description of the leaders of Chabad Chasidim is that there are 6 different Chabad dynasties/branches, but only one remains today.

With regards to forking, The Rebbes of Chabad page should not be considered a fork do to:

The number of Chabad offshoots and branches bumping up the number of Chabad Rebbes from 7 to 13+ (7 Lubavitch, 2 Strashelye, 3 Kopost, 1 Liadi, and then there are another 3 not on the page)
The view that there is one dynasty in Chabad and that there are just one or two offshoots is the Chabad-Lubavitch perspective. Following Shneur Zalman of Liadi's death, Strashelye was a real option for Chabad Chasidim. Following Menachem Mendel Schneersohn's death, Chabad literally splintered into four. The Rebbes of Chanad page can present a NPOV article listing all Chassidic rebbes branching from the founder of Chabad.

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, I.am.a.qwerty, but I don't understand your logic. A Hasidic dynasty is a father-to-son, father-to-son-in-law, or rebbe-to-talmid line of succession. The seven Rebbes of Chabad are a clear-cut dynasty of father-to-son and father-to-son-in-law. The grandson of a Rebbe who puts together his own Hasidut is not considered a scion of the dynasty, but a progenitor of a new dynasty. You should be working on the individual dynasty pages of Strashelye and others rather than trying to present them as one big Chabad-Lubavitch family, which they are not. Yoninah (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yoninah, perhaps I've got the categories confused, the article is meant to include all Rebbes of Chabad, not just the Chabad-Lubavitch dynasty. I don't know what would be the best course of action, placing all non-Lubavitch Chabad under an offshoot label, put each offshoot under its own label, or change the Chabad label to include all Chabad rebbes.

My argument ultimately boils down to this, the same way we wouldn't put the presidents of a country under a category label alone, but have a page (or a section under a government page) listing the presidents, their predecessors and successors.

What makes the Chabad case unique is that it appears that most of the offshoots considered themselves legitimate successors of the first and third rebbes.

I suggest that the category be temporarily removed, the article expanded, and start a disscussion to decide how the Chabad rebbes should be categorized.

And once again, my argument why the article is not a fork is due to the POV aspect of having just a main Chabad-Lubavitch page. That setup would automatically throw all the other rebbes into some corner and push aside their historical significance. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But who needs all rebbes of Chabad in one article? It is not a logical grouping, being that these were separate branches of Chassidism. If anything, that is why there are categories (or even lists). Debresser (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change and New Focus

You know, after looking back at the main Chabad page, it hit me that the offshoots are more like a historical footnote than a current, ever expanding subject like Chabad-Lubavitch. Maybe this would make sense to do considering how many offshoots there are and POV/NPOV issues: the article can be renamed to Chabad offshoots or the like, the reason why it should not be in the main Chabad page is for POV/NPOV issues (the slant would be from and within the Lubavitch article...), and making a new category for the offshoots confuses things as what is missing here is a section/article addressing the branches of Chabad. Currently the Chabad page is not about Chabad in general but Chabad-Lubavitch in particular. And being that the other branches are extinct, any section in the chabad page would appear out of sync, as the bulk of the page focuses on Chabad-Lubavitch philosophy, history and activities.

The rebbes of Chabad page can be renamed to something along the lines of "Branches/Offshoots of the Chabad Movement". In that page will be a background on the offshoots, surrounding controversies, the other rebbes, relations with and influence on Chabad-Lubavitch.

This way, we can have a central article for groups that thought themselves to be Chabad without the POV nature of a Chabad-Lubavitch article. The NPOV nature of a separate article will allow for expansion and inclusion of topics such as Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach and his followers, Zalman Schechter and Jewish Renewal (two groups founded by former Chabad Shluchim)

Instead of having the average reader happen to find out about the Chabad roots of so many groups, we can put it in one spot without the influence of a Lubavitch perspective.

Does this make sense? The wiki fork page had a section on POV natured articles. Does that apply here? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we would do the name change thing, I'd remove the section on Chabad-Lubavitch dynasty, rewrite the opening and provide a little background. I believe there is enough scholarly material to provide a setting to explain how the Chabad groups split off. The dynasty tag would have to be removed, a short description of the dynasty would have to be added, and the sources for the other two sons of he third Chabad rebbe would have to e located. I think this is both doable and worthy of inclusion as an article

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, Debresser, let me clarify. I don't mind categories or lists, so I've suggested that the content on this page be moved to a new page dealing with a historical phenomenon worthy of encyclopedic treatment, namely, the numerous offshoots of Chabad founded by their rebbes.

Once again, the page as it exists right now probably can be replaced with a list and a small section in the Chabad article, but the subject would have a Lubavitch POV slant. The subject is significant enough to be addressed, and so far it has appeared only through the lens of the current Chabad-Lubavitch movement. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:57, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad Chasidim[edit]

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

The format of pages under Category:Hasidic dynasties is to summarize the movement and its adherents on the main dynasty page. This page unnecessarily synthesizes content already existing on the Chabad dynasty page, as well as the Hasidic Judaism page. Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fork of Chabad. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per Debresser as this is clearly a violation of WP:CONTENTFORK. Besides, there is Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidim that does this job well enough. IZAK (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the page fills a void the Chabad and other pages/categories have created.

The Chabad page presents an article on the Chabad movement, history, organizations, activities etc. But the article quickly becomes longer as new content can always be added. At a certain point it makes sense to add a page for specific Chabad-related subjects. Take the Chabad related controversies page for example. Here's a lot of content relating to Chabad which can easily be transferred to the main Chabad page as a new section. But when someone wants to check Wikipedia to define Chabad, they should not be flooded with all this detailed information about a group they've just heard about. This approach can simplify the main Chabad page and allow for other pages to tackle the specific subjects in more detail.

The same way Jews are a group of people, and Judaism is the religion, culture and customs of that people, so too Chabad Chasidim are a group of Jews who have formed a community around a philosophy, charismatic rebbes, particular organizations and institutions. They practice particular customs and rituals. The Chabad page currently has enough content to split into several pages that can adequately deal with the wealth of information about those particular subjects. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the category Chabad-Lubavitch rebbes does not include all Chabad rebbes

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I.am.a.qwerty, what you are saying about Chabad Hasidim can be said about Satmar Hasidim, Gerrer Hasidim, Belzer Hasidim, Bobover Hasidim, Lelover Hasidim, etc., etc. All Hasidim "practice particular customs and rituals" related to their Hasidut. Are you suggesting we create pages about the Hasidim of each of the Hasiduts listed in List of Hasidic dynasties? I think not. Instead, the main dynasty page is the place to describes the "particular customs and rituals" of the Hasidut in question. For example, see Ger (Hasidic dynasty)#Identifying features of Ger. If you don't see such a section like this on a dynasty page, by all means add it. But do not create a content fork like Chabad Chasidim, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yoninah, I've revied the fork page and checked out some of the other groups you've mentioned. It looks like this rule is pretty much valid all across the board and helps keep Wikipedia articles manageable. I guess I can move whatever information I've added on the Chabad Chasidim page onto the Chabad before deletion. As someone who has used Wikipedia in the past, I very much appreciate the work the experienced editors are doing. I can see why this is necessary, though I believe this page would have helped the average Wikipedia reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.am.a.qwerty (talk • contribs) 07:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The underlying issue is not that this is a WP:CONTENTFORK, which could be acceptable in many cases; The problem is that this article is sort of a restatement of the underlying parent article Chabad that doesn't provide any clear justification for why it exists. Someone who ends up at the Chabad Chasidim article is left seeing Chabad-lite without seeing the whole picture provided by the original article. Alansohn (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I meant as well when calling this article a fork. But Alansohn (whom I haven't seen in a while and am happy to see now) has put it more clearly. Debresser (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I moved the content on Chabad Chasidim demographics to main Chabad page. Let's get this discussion weapped up as I agree to the page's deletion. How does this normally work? Can we delete right now, or do we to need to wait a period of time before deletig? Once deleted, do I have manually remove all links to the page? Is there a quicker way?I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:26, 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) 04:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Lawson (actress)[edit]

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

WP:GNG, cannot find print or web sources beyond IMDB, and sorry but role list looks non-notable. In ictu oculi (talk)

Delete - unable to find evidence that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Gong show 23:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Can't find any sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is a lot more to say about her than the article indicates. 2-3 performances in minor venues nearly a decade ago, and nothing since - presumably "resting" permanently. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mekaela Academies[edit]

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

Originally speedied as spam, but the creator reinstated it. The only citation is a WP:SPS, and there are no independent third party sources I could find about this organisation, which would suggest that it may not satisfy WP:GNG. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 18:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried searching on the 4 school names, including within the .ke domain, and found very little sourcing that would apply to WP:GNG (for a summary of the rule see WP:42) . -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand your worries about promotional articles but Mekaela Academies do exist and there are sources which mention the schools (2 German newspapers, 2 Kenyan newspapers, Lufthansa's HelpAlliance and One-World-Foundation, to name but a few. I don't understand why those sources shouldn't be reliable enough. Stefan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to sources? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will update the links to newspaper articles and websites which mention Mekaela Academies Stefan (talk) 8:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a few external links which refer to the project. If that can't help preventing the deletion of my article I rest my case. Stefan (talk) 7:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Weak keep There are three independent reliable sources that discuss Mekaela Academies.[1][2][3] There may be more as SW2001E mentioned something about "2 Kenyan newspapers". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:30, 21 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, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in the US the norm is for primary schools to be municipally funded through school districts. There are exceptions, private schools, church schools etc. but I think it's fair to say that this is the norm. School districts are invariably considered notable. The reason being not only because of their community importance but because they provide a convenient repository for information about nn primary schools. In a developing country different considerations apply. Very often charities or private companies organise their schools. To avoid systemic bias I see no reason why these groupings should be treated differently from school districts. Moving on to sources, many of these countries have a poor Internet presence for educational groupings. So, time should be allowed for hard-copy sources to be researched. In the case of Mekaela Academies all the indications are, given time it can be developed to meet WP:ORG - therefore 'Keep'. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a group of schools, one of which is a high school. It should be treated as in some respects a combination article for a school system, not as individual primary schools. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kodaigon[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of 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) 17:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. This is more trivial fancruft with no notability created by a banned sockpuppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent notability, no sourced content worthy of merging elsewhere. -- Trevj (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:25, 4 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 List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berronar Truesilver[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons 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) 17:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one is fairly well referenced. bd2412 T 18:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are all official D&D materials published by the former and current owners of the franchise, so they cannot meet the requirement for secondary sources. TTN (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: there is an article on Dwarf deities. bd2412 T 20:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
transwiki to some gamer site that loves this kind of cruft. As for Wikipedia, the subject fails WP:GNG - all of the sources are from the creator or officially licensed products, with no coverage from any independent sources and so the options are Merge, Redirect or Delete. The suggested merge target is already bloated with other cruft primary sourced cruft and has only 1 statement sourced by anything that might be independent and so merging would be a case of shoveling the shit from this stall to the next and not really any improvement, leaving Delete or Redirect. as a potential search term, Redirect would seem the be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember "cruft" is not a reason for deletion per WP:NOCRUFT and referring to things as such is uncivil. Web Warlock (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

calling a spade a spade is not uncivil. and while "cruft" alone is not a reason for deletion, cruft+policy is reason. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or delete. Either is acceptable. This character does not have any independent notability, and its article is unlikely have anything but primary sources published by the creators. With a lack of independent secondary sources, a merger seems appropriate, but deletion is also acceptable. Adding more sourcebooks will do nothing to establish notability or provide out-of-universe perspective. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities as appropriate. Article has absolutely zero third-party sources, and fails WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fact is, the bar is being set no higher than any other project- WP:POKEMON - all articles are expected to have independent reliable sources take note of them in a significant manner. There is no exception for D&D products. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as redirect/merge to Dwarf deities. This article was one of a series of related articles initially merged to the above target by User:Drilnoth November 2008; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor two and a half years later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject. In my opinion, a return to the status quo would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dwarf deities per WP:BEFORE, already done before. -- Trevj (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dwarf deities or List of Dungeons & Dragons deities, the topic fails to establish its notability because it is only sourced to primary sources. Our notability guideline requires "significant coverage from multiple reliable, secondary and independent sources", that threshold is not negotiable and it is obviously not met here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:20, 4 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. Wifione ^Message 19:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BOFA International[edit]

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

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

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

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

This Organisation Does not Cite Notable References. All of the references are coming through PR Resources. VI-007 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I don't know what to make of this company. Based on press releases and similar non-reliable sources, this company seems to be known within its industry., but I wasn't able to find independent, reliable, secondary sources that would demonstrate its notability beyond announcements of the Queen's award. As I said on the article's talk page, just getting the award doesn't meet WP:GNG, but it's an indicator that this company probably has been mentioned in a non-trivial way in multiple reliable sources. I just haven't found any yet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: David Cornell's patented inventions are well known by Specialist Safety Practitioners the world over. The fact that the article is specialist is not reason alone for deletion. I note that this is well documented in press releases all over the internet. This page is of specialist encylopedic interest and simply needs more work and better cited sources. With time I would imagine the patents would also be added.Safetyprofessional (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)^[1] '''Comment:''' added by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) at 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC) for clarity.[reply]
Please provide citations from reliable sources that indicate that it is the company, not the items, that are notable OR that the company is notable within the industry. I looked and found some industry awards listed on the company's web site, but it's unclear if these awards are truly coveted and competitive like the Queen's award presumably is, so I didn't add them to the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be assured that the content that we have seen today is in our opinion non promotional, accurate and verifyable. Many Thanks. BOFA International (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: BOFA International (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

BOFA International (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep -- I would have thought that a company with a revenue of £12M was notable, though I am not clear if this is turnover or profit. I would have hoped to find a guideline on a threshold in WP:CORP. The article certainly needs improvement and better sourcing. If ther company is exploiting patents, that is worth mentioning. Unfortuately, since many industrial companies are marketing their products to other companies or wholesalers, they may fail to be in the public eye and hence appear not to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep -- I think that in the current economic climate any successful UK manufacturing company should be applauded and are definitely worthy of their own Wiki page !...PaulD1963 (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)— User:PaulD1963 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
'Delete' Most of the above "potential keep" statements are not WP policy--they amount to either "I know it's notable". or "it ought to be notable" . The purpose of WP is notto help the manufacturing climate in the UK or elsewhere; £12 million is either turnover or profit is not in the least notable in it's own right--there is no such standard, (but informally I thin k of it as $100 million receipts, or $1 billion holdings--above those I expect to find references, below it it's less likely) Whether the author (or the company) thinks the content is informative not promotional is not the standard, but rather what we think here at WP. Hoowever, a company that makes notable products is notable, and in fact thats usually how companies become notable. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:DGG simply shouting POLICY at a potential manufacturer of very notable products of interest is hardly helpful! Please look and see how much is actually available on WP on the essential subject of Fume Extraction. (Maybe it should be under that heading?) I think flashing the cash won't even be enough to get an article particularly noticed on WP either. This is a very small and innocent article that actually informs the reader about a rare control product manufacturer helping to prevent Occupational Asthma. There are very few UK manufacturing companies doing well around these days, is that notable in itself? I don't know... perhaps you could elaborate? Safetyprofessional (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rephrasing what you just said - We should throw out Wikipedia policy because I like the article and I think it's good! Please try to stick to policy when discussing deletion - it's all that matters. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per davidwr and DGG. There are a number of sources that show the company exists, but nothing at all that indicates its known in the wider world outside of the industry for filters. To answer a few other questions :

"I note that this is well documented in press releases all over the internet" - which are not independent sources and can never be used to establish notability of a subject. Press release feeds print anything without making any editorial judgement on what's printed there. Your press release can say it's the greatest company in the world, but unless a third party with good standing for fact checking also says so, it can't go in.
"This page is of specialist encyclopedic interest" - in other words, unsuitable for a general purpose encyclopedia
"I would have thought that a company with a revenue of £12M was notable" - not really, no. Many medium sized companies have turnover of that size. Youtube was valued at $1.65 billion when sold to Google.
"This is a very small and innocent article" - please read WP:PLEASEDONT
"DGG simply shouting POLICY" - please comment on the content, not the contributor, and he didn't. He told you what specific policies meant the article is not suitable on Wikipedia. Please read the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. They will explain what you need to do to get the article kept, if it's possible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mainly per DGG ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHEilds Safetyprofessional (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC) So a page like SHEilds one is okay? * Comment added by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) at 19:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC) assuming it was to be a stand-alone comment. It's hard to tell if this was supposed to be a new comment or a reply (use *: to reply to a top-level bullet-item), Safetyprofessional is encouraged to fix it and remove my "small" comment if I did it wrong. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each page is considered in its own right. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete read the policy through but still can't see a violation. None the less it has clearly caused some kind of offence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetyprofessional (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As things stand, I am neither seeing nor finding sufficient coverage that would demonstrate notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Happy to reverse that view if someone can locate references (including from specialist press) to demonstrate that, though. AllyD (talk) 17:42, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monaghan Pipe Band[edit]

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

Another Grade 4 band. James^x1 2345 17:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:16, 7 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) 05:13, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The band is not notable, as it does not pass the GNG or any notability guidelines regarding bands. GNews hits are practically nonexistent, and the first few pages of my Google search brought up no mentions in reliable sources. T C N7JM 07:22, 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) 04:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Boru Irish Pipe Band[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another non-notable band James^x1 2345 17:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:15, 7 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) 05:12, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. --Enlightinggemini (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007. --SMS ^Talk 12:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:36, 24 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) 04:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Economics Research Bureau[edit]

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

Promotional, mostly self-sourced article. The (western) Google is not convincing in establishing notability. Seems to fail WP:GNG. The Banner talk 23:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:23, 8 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) 04:46, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is well written and does appear in search result and reference are good too. --Enlightinggemini (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007. --SMS ^Talk 12:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how well a non-notable topic is written, it is still not notable. Appearing in search engines is a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could only locate a passing mention in some sources: "Sarkar, Abdul Awwal. "Regulation of Islamic banking in Bangladesh: role of Bangladesh bank." International Journal of Islamic Financial Services 2.1 (2000): 67." But I'm not sure how reliable this is and it does not help to establish notability (thus failing WP:ORG). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:23, 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) 04:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epping Forest Pipe Band[edit]

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

Grade 4 bands are not really notable. James^x1 2345 17:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:10, 7 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) 05:06, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a couple mentions of this one while searching for sources, but not enough to, I feel, establish notability. T C N7JM 07:32, 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) 04:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Revilla[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. While there is more in this version than the previously deleted one the references are still mostly primary, directory entries or don't even mention her. Google finds nothing signifacant still. noq (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 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) 05:00, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:07, 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. Wifione ^Message 19:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devyn Rose[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable singer lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. References are brief mentions or listings. No evidence songs are nationally or internationally played. Vanity/PR page. Fails WP:BIO and others. reddogsix (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can provide evidence of songs being played via Mediabase reports received - also reports are available via www.mediabase.com. How and where do I send this . Also, please advise on how this looks like a vanity or PR page and what can be removed or replaced if anything? PinkStaircase (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do not send it to anyone, please add a reference to the article that shows this is the case. reddogsix (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can only provide a report from www.mediabase.com to show actual airplay/rotation. I would be violating Mediabase.com terms of conditions and probably be sued if I provide the world wide web with a username and password to access these reports as proof that her single is in rotation on all those stations. Please take a look at the website www.mediabase.com - you will see that you have to login to access reports. Is there another way I can reference it being that I cannot email or send screenshots to anyone? PinkStaircase (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If that's all you can do, she's not yet notable. Best thing to do is wait until she makes notable music and there are real references to use, such as reviews and interviews (blogs don't count). -Tortie tude (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for citations to be freely available online. We routinely cite academic journals that require a login to access. This is OK for citations, just not for external links. Airplay/rotation information from mediabase is a real reference that supports notability, and meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #11.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. DaveApter (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ok then I just don't see the point in WP Notability Requirements as I provided at least one requirement and still it gets deleted. Lost, but okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkStaircase (talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that WP:BAND reads:
A musician or ensemble may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria. (Emphasis added)

Meeting one of the several criteria listed does not guarantee notability, it merely indicates the likelihood of notability. The basic requirement is that a subject (whether it be a musician, politician, athlete, etc) be the topic of multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. This basic requirement exists to assure that there is sufficient source material from which to verify an article's content. Failure to find such material makes it impossible to produce a valid article. If you can provide evidence of such significant coverage in reliable sources, please do so. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "may" also applies to criterion 1, having significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't see the point. National airplay is significant. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Rotation claimed is from individual stations, not a national network so no pass on MUSICBIO#11. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon to have an article. No good coverage in sources or evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC yet. The potential is there for her to become notable, though, so if PinkStaircase (talk · contribs) wants to incubate it (either at User:PinkStaircase/Devyn Rose or Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Devyn Rose) until she hits the indie download charts (or something similar), that would be ideal. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When you say national network, you are speaking as if you are looking at reports and making a factual determination. You've used the word "claim" ...it's only a "claim" if you can prove that she in not in rotation, can you prove this? Because I can prove she is, but there is no where or way for me to send any proof as stated above. WP:Music #11 doesn't state the artist has to be on any indie charts or "something". Anyone who is actually in the music industry knows what it takes to get on the Billboard and or ndie charts. She is on 7 national radio stations, top markets that have over 1 million listeners, played alongside other major artist - this is on a national level. I give up. PinkStaircase (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a claim even if you can prove it. But the semantics here are irrelevent. As for national, you yourself provided a list of radio stations. None of them are national. Take the first listed, WRVZ. Broadcast area is Charleston MSA. That's one part of one city in one state. Clearly not national. If there is 7 national stations she's on why not give that list instead of the list of 7 local stations you gave? And why are you mentioning charts which have nothing to do with wp:music#11? Trying to build a strawman? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:44, 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) 04:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of all[edit]

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

Dicdef. I'm happy for someone to prove me wrong in this regard but for now, it just doesn't seem to have enough substance for an article. Coin945 (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – While examples of usage could be assembled, there really isn't anywhere encyclopedic this phrase can go. (And no, we don't want a "list of..." article either.)  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  18:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. The article is merely a collection of quotes using the phrase in question, with no sources as to its origin or general use. Yoninah (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The page creator may have formatted this page after The new black, which is also a collection of tons of quotes without any solid sourcing on the expression itself. Yoninah (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A wiktionary term, and already on wiktionary. Reh man 01:08, 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 speedily deleted (G11, promotional) by Bbb23. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortnight Calendar[edit]

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

Made up in one day. PROD removed by author. reddogsix (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indisputably original research not discussed in any reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen above. Fitnr (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the only source is something receently published on wikipedia.com, surely that is far too close to WP:OR to count as a source. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and snow close. Wikipedia is not for things you come up with one day. Considering that this is something the user is trying to promote on Wikipedia, this might be speedyable as promotion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged it as a speedy for promotion, as it's highly unlikely this will survive AfD and it would be better to just stick a fork in it now. Ultimately this is something that was added by the original editor in hopes of it getting notice and discussion. I'm all for new ideas, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote something you came up with. If it gains coverage in RS then one day it can be re-added, but not before that point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 stuck in a fork, and now, it is well and truly done. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 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 speedy deletion (G7) after the original editor blanked the page. (Non-admin closure.) AllyD (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amine "hYpeeee" Si tayeb[edit]

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

At best, this might be a vanity article; at worst, it could be a hoax. The article's grand claims are not backed by references; a Google search turns up nothing to affirm the statements in this article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:47, 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, snow close. While the original creator's passion is admirable, Wikipedia is not a place for things that you made up one day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serenism[edit]

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

Unfortunately, the subject of this article lacks notability. An AfD is being placed per User_talk:TechLoveDrug, and is it reccommended that any voters check this articles talk page too. Benboy00 (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On google's first page, the only related thing that comes up is [[4]]. Benboy00 (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this may be more relevant. bobrayner (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Wikipedia isn't for things you made up one day. @TechLoveDrug:, if you want to achieve sweeping political change, best to start somewhere else. bobrayner (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reasons as in the proposed deletion that was disputed. This is a neologism that's apparently been started on Reddit, and is not a notable political view or philosophy. If that were to come to pass, we would have an article about it after that happens, not before. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I were you (the creator), I would instead have this on a blog, which is better for numerous reasons, one of which is that only you can edit it, another being that it wont be deleted. Benboy00 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Comment Also, this is literally turning into a list of various political terms and their meanings, all of which are covered in their own articles. Benboy00 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A neologism naming some original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Effectively an original research essay. As things stand, it has no notability. AllyD (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SNOWBALL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benboy00 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no reliable sources for the ideology at described in the article. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON and there is no prejudice to recreation if multiple in-depth reliable sources become available. There is a political ideology called Literary serenism, but this article has nothing to do with that. --Mark viking (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that it is categorised as a Neologism: it obviously fails WP:NEO. With no sources, my guess is that it is also . Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Net4[edit]

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

This Organisation Does not Cite Notable References. All of the references are coming through PR Resources or Directories. VI-007 (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Virgininfatuation (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. (GKCH (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Keep All references are notable e.g. Econominc Times, Moneycontrol etc. Yes I agree need more references and details. These resources are not PR/Directories. Company is public limited and listed in BSE and NSE. Company is widely known in Internet world sine 1985.(GKCH (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is doubt about company, since long time in Internet industry and notable in India.(117.212.122.213 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)) — 117.212.122.213 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG per lack of third-party sources. Of the three references in the article, one reference is a press release, the other two are are simply stocks/financial data with no significant coverage whatsoever. - Aoidh (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There have been significant number of third-party coverages for the company. A simple GNews search also shows that. Shovon (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A simple GNews search shows nothing but simple press releases, that does nothing for establishing notability. - Aoidh (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? Why don't you release some PR material to the press and get those published in reputed newspapers? Shovon (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant; the article lacks third-party sources. That you believe it's difficult to release press releases has nothing to do with that. - Aoidh (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument, which I am neither supporting nor opposing, was not that it is difficult to release press releases (anyone can do so for a payment) but that press releases only get picked up by reputed newspapers if the subject is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does hint at possible notability, but it comes nowhere close to showing it. They aren't independent sources just because they were picked up by a newspaper, and that's what's required for a subject to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Articles require notability, as shown through third-party sources that are independent of the subject, so that article can be written neutrally. Without those kinds of sources, writing a neutral article is impossible, which is why notability is important; this article does not have that. - Aoidh (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Shovon, we should focus about importance of article/contribution. I supported VI-007 action when he/she proposed deletion of article, but without knowing about article again proposed for deletion.GKCH (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company history needs better sourcing, but the 1985 stated establishment date for Mangla Chemicals isn't going to be easy to verify online. Meanwhile, I found a couple of additional mentions.[5][6] -- Trevj (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this link from The Economic Times, which talks about the company's history since its inception in 1985 as Mangla Chemicals. Shovon (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link is a copy of a press release that can also be found verbatim in their company reports, this one is about an individual, not a company. - Aoidh (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good reliable secondary sources here. — Cirt (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Here" meaning what? WP:GNG requires independent sources, and none have been shown. Every single source shown in the AfD is a reprinted press release. - Aoidh (talk) 16:53, 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 Keep but merge somewhere or not. The articles need merging into one but there is no consensus on which one it shoukd be. That discussion dosn't need an afd to drive it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Systema[edit]

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

There's no notability in reliable sources. Russian version was deleted because of this. Akim Dubrow (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Russian martial arts as the sources seem quite thin. Warden (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Systema has made quite a splash in the martial arts world even though (in my opinion) there has been a lot of hyperbole. There are two third party reliable references in the article now and I am sure more could be found. I suppose merging is an option but I also wonder if Systema is actually Ryabko's Systema and if so a Redirect to that is more in order.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference to Black Belt's article is a fake, there's no such page and no such article in the journal. The Malaysian article is mainly an advertising, so it's not independent. No other sources present. We in ru-wiki made a search for sources on this topic and we've found no reliable sources, unlike Retuinskih's System ROSS, on which we've found many sources and keep the article. So Ryabko's Systema is also deletion candidate, but I don't know how to merge its deletion proposal into this page. --Akim Dubrow (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not understand your remark "The reference to Black Belt's article is a fake, there's no such page and no such article in the journal. " [7] is an index to systema articles. I find the systema articles [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Could you explain again why you think there are no reliable sources? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I mean that "Systema Martial Arts: Ancient Russian Warrior Techniques Used To Train Red Special Forces" referenced from the article does not exist and the other notes in the "Black Belt" do not cover the article topic enough to make it reliable. But I've come here only to point it out, not to fight for en-wiki quality =) That's up to you now. --Akim Dubrow (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article "Systema Martial Arts: Ancient Russian Warrior Techniques Used To Train Red Special Forces" probably does not exist, but there is definitely an article in Black belt magazine called "Russian Martial Art: Is Systema the fiercest fighting style on Earth?". The name of this article, as well as photo of well-known Systema practitioner, Vladimir Vasiliev, are ob the cover of Black Belt magazine issue for August-September 2013. This article takes 2-3 pages, and it describes Systema in sufficient details to write an extensive article. Unfortunately, it's not in open access for everyone, but this is not required by Wikipedia rules for proving notability. АндрейДВласов (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the above reason. I actually have heard much more of Ryabko than Retuinskih so my opinion above still stands. The latter article could do with a bit of clean-up - to me it does not feel much better.

I don't know enough about Systema to really comment on it. I did review the article and remove a large amount of information that was based on very unreliable sources.diff--Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the hyperbole I was talking about.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete both~~ Lack the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all variants into this article I did some more research and it looks like there are enough articles on Systema (in all its variations) to meet WP:GNG, but I don't think any single variant has enough sourcing. The articles I came across often just talk about Systema--it's like just talking about karate, it encompasses all the subgroups.Mdtemp (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Ryabko's Systema sounds like Kano's judo. One article describing the various systems would be easier to reference/establish notability. jmcw (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added few more citations to the article. There's perfect matching criteria for WP:MANOTE: over 140 schools over the world (see http://systemaryabko.com/en/locations/29894f42b132bc6de558236418.html ), major martial arts like Black belt magazine, Aikido journal not only mention Systema, but write extensive blogs about it. The Black Belt Magazine has even featured one of the most famous Systema practitionists, Vladimir Vasiliev, on its cover, and that issue does contain the article about Systema. The fact that Malaysian journal likes Systema does not contradict Wikipedia rules, as long as they are not affiliated - and they are, apparently, not. What I do support is to merge it with Ryabki's Systema. "Systema" actually refers to many slightly different martial arts like Systema Ryabko, ROSS (the first S stands for Systema), Systema Kadochnikova, etc. But so far, the information in this Systema article refers only to Ryabko's systema, so it makes sense to merge them. АндрейДВласов (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. The MA Project usually accepts a single article in a leading magazine as sufficient to establish notability. Systema has a section in Black Belt magazine with regular articles prepared by one of their editors.[15] I welcome the nominator to our project and I invite him to more actively participate in our project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts. I recommend him to look over our article cleanup project Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Article Review to see how we have cared about the quality of the articles here and to get a feeling for the community standards. jmcw (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Russian martial arts. That article would benefit by providing a more comprehensive description of various schools of technique. There is not enough in this article to justify a stand alone. – S. Rich (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Systema Besides the Black Belt articles mentioned by jmcw, there were articles on Systema in Budo International (Feb. 2003), a 2005 issue of the Journal of Asian Martial Arts, and this year's April and May issues of Martial Arts Illustrated. The articles I've read don't tend to specify specific variations of Systema, so I would agree with the earlier comments by Mdtemp and jmcw about merging Ryabko's Systema and Retuinskih's System ROSS into this article. I don't think those articles show significant independent coverage of the specific variants, but help support the notability of systema in general. Papaursa (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Systema and Systema Ryabko and leave ROSS alone. Systema Ryabko has enough notability on its own, as well as ROSS. All references in Systema article speak about Ryabko's Systema, so it makes sense to merge Systema and Ryabko's Systema. АндрейДВласов (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: What has been established so far is that Systema and Ryabko's Systema is the same thing, Systema has two reliable sources at the moment, and Ryabko's Systema has none. At the time being, there is no consensus in the discussion whether the two articles should be merged and left in peace, or both should be merged into Russian martial arts. Addressing in particular this point would be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources mentioned by both jmcw and myself earlier in this discussion are sufficient to show Systema is notable enough to merit its own article. Papaursa (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Papaursa that the quantity of sources justifies an independent article for systema as for Sambo (martial art) jmcw (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - merge Systema and Ryabko's Systema into Ryabko's Systema, and don't merge it to Russian martial arts. Ryabko's Systema has enough notability on its own. АндрейДВласов (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: merge to 'systema' as the common usage in English. jmcw (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the merge should be into Systema, which would be the common search term. Far more people have heard of heard of Systema and most would have no idea who Ryabko is. Ryabko's Systema should be redirected there.Mdtemp (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, merging to 'systema' works, but we probably should include mentions about other martial arts. The point is that there are several 'systema's in Russia: http://russianspetsnaz.com/ http://kadochnikovsystem.com/ - all of them are very similar, claim to have origin in Middle-ages warrior techniques and have similar main principles. At some point, every one of them tried to brand their martial art as "Systema" - and on their websites you can occasionally find "Systema". So far, Mikhail Ryabko was more successfull in the West in branding his "Systema". So, if we merge it to Systema, we should include something like "This article refers to Systema Ryabko, but Systema may refer to Systema Kadichnikov or Systema Spetznaz" with appropriate links. АндрейДВласов (talk) 00:51, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay abhiyaan[edit]

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

Awkward definition of a word, perhaps belongs in Wiktionary but would need to be completely rewritten, Witty lama 07:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a publisher of original research, or a soapbox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 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 Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The article seems to be related to a campaign or an NGO aiming to reduce corporal punishment. However though google search confirms that such a program exists (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, the mentions are too cursory to meet WP:GNG/WP:ORG. If kept the article would essentially need to be rewritten and moved to Abhay Abhiyan. Abecedare (talk) 03:04, 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. Normally, I would relist the nomination, but given that the article has no reliable sources, that nobody voted even weak keep in two nominations, and that the nominator arguments are pretty elaborate and based on policies, I just go ahead and delete the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Osiris Entertainment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this back in April 2012, but it was closed as no consensus after nobody voted on it. I'm re-nominating it again for the same reasons. I tried giving it time to gain sources, but instead it's been used as an advert for the company. The problem here is that there's ultimately no notability for this company, not enough to pass WP:CORP. The company is occasionally mentioned in passing in articles for other things, but they've never actually gained any in-depth coverage. None of their films have ever gained enough coverage to merit articles and they've either been redirected or outright deleted. The most I can find that actually mentions the company is this article. That's not enough to merit an article. Everything else is either trivial, primary, or on sites such as this one that's of dubious usability. (And even then the article isn't actually about the company, but about one of their films.) In the meantime the article has become a fairly promotional mess as various IPs come on to puff up the prose even more. I know that's not a reason to delete in and of itself, but this is kind of a good example of a company with little to borderline notability that has a promotional article on Wikipedia. I'd speedy it as sheer promotion, but I'd like to give it another chance through AfD before doing that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the material they produce or distribute is no more notable than the ones listed here, they aren't a notable company. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 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. Can be recreated when it becomes notable Wifione ^Message 18:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TRANSFER Act of 2013[edit]

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

Article on non-notable act that was only introduced to US House in August. Has yet to be taken up by the Senate. Reference is directly from the sponsor in the US House's official website. Also fails as TOOSOON since we don't even know if it will pass, much less what the final bill will look like. Caffeyw (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The only outside source Google turned up for this [16] was a mention that the Congressman was going to meet some people to discuss it. The references on the article at present consist of A) a press release from the Congressman that introduced it, B) a page on Congress's web site documenting that it has been introduced, and C) a copy of the bill. Also, this is a bill that has not been voted on in the House or even been introduced in the Senate. If sources were already discussing a bill that still had so far to go in the process, that would be one thing, but they aren't. Presumably many bills have been introduced that nothing ever comes of, and they don't have articles, so this would seem to be WP:TOOSOON. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not TOOSOON because it is verifiable in the following independent secondary reliable sources.^[2]^[3]^[4] There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the existence of this bill. The fact that many unratified bills don't have articles isn't a reason not to have an article-- many unratified bills should have articles. This may be one of them. Asauers (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC) — Asauers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also, there is a competing bill in the Senate called, the ‘‘Technology Transfer Innovation, Invention, and Implementation Act of 2013." Asauers (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC) — Asauers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 04:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has almost nothing by way of third party sources and fails to meet WP:GNG. Two of the sources above are from organizations reporting that one of their members gave testimony before the Committee; not independent sources. The third is someone's blog giving their opinion. The sources available by way of searching online also yielded much of the same, so unless there are additional sources elsewhere, the subject does not warrant a standalone article. - Aoidh (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ - With everyone's garage band on Wikipedia, you'd think a proposed act of congress would sail through. The bill is on AUTM. AUTM is relevant. Maybe look into it? Or don't. Asauers (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck your duplicate keep, since you already did did so above, but garage bands wouldn't belong on Wikipedia either with no reliable third-party sources; this article isn't exempt from that. - Aoidh (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another third party source. ^[1] At what point does the article move beyond "almost nothing by way of third party sources?" At what point does this become "a more thorough discussion?" Asauers (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and used "Google" to add references from the following third party organizations: Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC), Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), Association of American Universities (AAU), Global University Venturing, SUNY Geneseo, and the American Institute of Physics. Asauers (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That link you just gave is a special interest group actively supporting the bill; in no way is that a third-party independent source by any means. The article moves beyond "almost nothing by way of third-party sources" when actual, third-party independent sources can be found. This article still does not have that. - Aoidh (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Institute of Physics? Federal Laboratory Consortium? SUNY Geneseo? Columbia University? There are plenty of references. More than most articles.Asauers (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply naming entities without looking at the sources and the connection they have to the subject does nothing to support keeping the article. Again, the article needs third-party independent sources, and it doesn't have that. The number of references the article has doesn't matter, but rather the quality and type of reference. - Aoidh (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not just "naming entities." Those sources are independent third party sources. None of the aforementioned entities proposed the bill. Some support the bill. Others merely comment. There are more than enough sources in both quality and type to support notability.Asauers (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "independent" isn't the same as Wikipedia's definition then, because I'm not seeing a single independent third-party source. All of the sources presented have some vested interest in the topic; they are not independent sources. - Aoidh (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some other opinions here. I don't think this is at all rational.Asauers (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There may be a connection between this AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coroners Act of 2006. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the sources are either routine coverage or produced by involved parties promoting the bill. There is no indepth analysis, no evidence of professional journalism. The best appears to be http://www.fuentek.com/blog/2013/07/worth-reading-2013-07/ which shows evidence of independent thought, but appears partisan (not that I understand US politics or lobbying, but it's unrelentingly positive about a bill full of tradeoffs, which seems odd). Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely seems partisan to me. Under that piece's byline is the following about the writer: "Laura Schoppe is the founder and president of Fuentek, LLC. She served as 2011-2013 VP of Strategic Alliances for the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) and currently chairs AUTM's Global Technology Portal Committee." (Emphasis mine) This would appear to be the same AUTM that appears several times in the links provided by Asauers, including a copy of the bill on their website [17] and a page about their advocacy of the bill [18]. Ms. Schoppe is working for an organization that has a clear interest in this bill. Nothing independent here. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain why this article cannot be merged into, and redirected to, the appropriate article on whatever area of the law this bill proposes to change. This bill presumably amounts to criticism of, and opposition to, existing law. James500 (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be. All we'd need is relaible independent sources dicsussing what areas of law the bill would change, which have yet to be found. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the bill proposes to do is to substitute section 9(jj) of the Small Business Act (15 USC 638(jj)). We do not need another source to tell us that, because the bill says that in express words that you could not make a mistake about [19]. James500 (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Title 15 of the United States Code for now. Spin off an article on the Small Business Act later, to include one sentence to the effect that this bill proposes to substitute s 9(jj). James500 (talk) 04:12, 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) 02:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hospital (2013 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ok, so this has been here before and the result was to incubate. I don't think that result made a lot of sense as this movie had already been released a month before that discussion. In any event, it sat in the incubator for months without any improvements of any kind so I have moved it back to article space and re-nominated it for deletion. Although sleeper hits are known to occur once in a while, it doesn't look like this is one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just now coming across this article. Some additional information has been provided to the article to support the film and it's "Scariest Movie" win in Germany. However, all news about this film states that it was released limited in 2013, not 2012, and that the official worldwide release doesn't happen until January 2014. So, it's too early to state that this film is not relevant or that isn't a hit because it's not been in the public's hands, yet. There are several outstanding online reviews, though, that suggest that this could become a hit once it is pushed into worldwide release in January 2014.

137.200.0.109 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Released minor horror film,[20][21][22] now available on VOD, that has received coverage in genre sources. Will never be as notable as Nightmare on Elm Street, but so what? Thanks to Beeblebrox for returning it to mainspace. Ignored too long while in the incubator, perhaps here it will finally gain some editorial attention. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:54, 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) 04:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to The Hospital (2012 film). It's sort of a weak keep on my end, but the film has received just enough coverage to squeak by for right now. It'd be nice if it had an extra review to move it into a more comfortable keep, but it did have other coverage. In any case, the article needs to be renamed to reflect that the film was created and screened in 2012. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually renamed it accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to multiple articles, the films IMDB page, and the distributor's website, this film was created in 2012 but not released or screened until March 2013. This would actually make the film a 2013 release, not a 2012 release. Your original entry as The Hospital (2013 film) was correct. 137.200.0.109 (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Schmidt. Reh man 01:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- Just now coming across this article. Some additional information has been provided to the article to support the film and it's "Scariest Movie" win in Germany. However, all news about this film states that it was released limited in 2013, not 2012, and that the official worldwide release doesn't happen until January 2014. So, it's too early to state that this film is not relevant or that isn't a hit because it's not been in the public's hands, yet. There are several outstanding online reviews, though, that suggest that this could become a hit once it is pushed into worldwide release in January 2014. 137.200.0.109 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous IP makes a decent point. I based my opinion on the release date in the Ain't It Cool News article. In examining other sources, it would seem they made a typo. Production began in mid-2012. Keep, yes... but the article should be moved back to The Hospital (2013 film) and the article should be be fixed per MOS:FILM and expanded to show production's timeline. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:34, 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 redirect to North Carolina gubernatorial election, 2012. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Howe[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Subject fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Unsuccessful political candidate who has received no discernible coverage outside of local and routine campaign press. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page. Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I suppose she isn't notable, although, as far as Libertarians go, she is reasonably successful. PrairieKid (talk) 05:26, 8 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, KTC (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She appears to have received some news coverage over the years. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Carolina gubernatorial election, 2012 as is our standard practice for unelected candidates who have received run-of-the-mill campaign coverage, per WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3rd-party candidates for governorships are not notable by default, only if they win or receive significant levels of coverage, which she did not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cullen. WP:POLITICIAN seems pretty clear, here. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Carolina gubernatorial election, 2012 per Cullen and WP:POLITICIAN. - Aoidh (talk) 04:57, 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 keep (non-admin closure). I'm going to ignore the "no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted" part of WP:SK. Anyone is, of course, welcome to re-nominate this if you disagree. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdy Ahmed[edit]

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

Reluctantly propose discussed deletion of this article as an unsourced BLP. The subject is probably fully notable in Egypt, but a quick search has not led me to reliable sources that mention him; this is probably more of an inter-cultural problem than anything else (or just my short-sightedness). He is listed on imdb, but that does not help. The article needs reliable sources, even if they are in Arabic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced BLP. Ginsuloft (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Justletters, my French isn't as good as yours. Was this a serious attempt at an article? It certainly didn't seem like an attack. Perhaps it could be moved to userspace so as not to discourage Salemkerman from contributing (perhaps at fr). DPRoberts534 (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding here? I don't think I made any suggestion that this was an attack. It was, if I understood it correctly, an unreferenced puff in very poor French for an Egyptian actor whom I believe to be fully notable in his own country, but for whom we may have difficulty establishing notability here; WP:CSB is easy in theory, but not so simple in actual practice. I removed everything from the article but the basic fact, and reluctantly proposed it for deletion here as it is entirely unreferenced. If you prefer to move it to userspace, that is entirely acceptable to me, and may be a better course of action. I've already left a note on Salemkerman's talk, suggesting that if he wants to reply in French that is also OK. I have briefly searched for Arabic-language sources, but have been hampered by the fact that (a) my Arabic is getting very rusty and (b) an awful lot of people are called Hamdi Ahmad or something very like it. Note: I chose this deletion path in preference to speedy or PROD in order to give time for other editors to express their opinions. I will see it as a failure in our way of doing things if the article is in fact deleted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant was that it could possibly be userified without falling afoul of BLP policy because, although unsourced, it did not seem to disparage the subject in any way. DPRoberts534 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should apologise, you were clear enough, I was obtuse. I see that some films and a reference have been added to the article. The reference at first sight looks as if it could be used as a source for details of his life. However, as far as I am able to determine, it was copied verbatim from ar.wp (!), which may limit its reliability? I note that the article there is without references. There's an article on Al-yum as-saadis on fr.wp, but it too is unreferenced (well, referenced to imdb). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've now added a couple of sentences about his political career (which was mentioned in the original French-language version posted here, but which I had forgotten about), together with two references. If my understanding of WP:POLITICIAN is correct, membership of the national parliament establishes his notability for our purposes. If I've got that right, and others agree that those references are sufficient to establish that, I will withdraw this nomination and request that it instead be considered a speedy keep. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article sure looked like original reporting, but now I see that ar.wp was the source. Horlicks. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets the criteria for a politician and possibly for an actor. The sources support his notability. It's just really difficult to find reliable information to expand the article. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently a member of parliament, and that's always enough to justify keeping an article. Further, if, as the nom says, he;s notable in his own country, then he;s notable for the purposes of English--it covers the world, it just writea the articles in English. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, keep since there is agreement that he is notable, and the article is no longer unreferenced. Would someone like to close this as a speedy keep? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:55, 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.