< 20 April	22 April >

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. Deleted in 2014 at author's request.

This AfD was never properly opened, so it was never properly closed. Technically, it has still been open this whole time. Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 06:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Scandinavia during World War II[edit]

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

This article has a strange focus. Norway and Denmark was invaded by Germany, this is already covered by Operation Weserübung, while Iceland was invaded by Britain in a preemptive move, covered by Iceland in World War II. Finland was invaded by Soviet in 1939 (the winter war). While all these events were part of WW2, I have never seen any source treating these separate events as a single topic, and never under the heading "Invasion of Scandinavia". Sweden was not invaded, and Finland and Iceland are not part of Scandinavia, and the invading forces were from 3 separate powers, so it does not make any sense to talk about the "Invasion of Scandinavia". The invasions of these northern countries were of course part of the wider European theater, but operations specific to these countries are already covered by Military operations in the Nordic countries during World War II. I think article is redundant and misleading, should be removed. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I have deleted the page at the original contributor's request. I think he would be well advised to start over, calling it something like "Nordic countries in world war II'" or Scandinavia in world War Two". We do not have a general article for the war in that region, and , as the comment above correctly indicates, the situation there was complex enough to need one. I'll gladly restore the article I deleted to user space or draft space as a skeleton if requested. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 22 April 2014 (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 Red Faction (series). (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geo-Mod[edit]

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

Previously successfully PRODed after inability to find any corroborating evidence of notability. Same concerns apply here, but needs to be an AfD discussion this time, apparently. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Volition, Inc. or Red Faction (series). Searchable term, definitely associated with the company or the game franchise. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Red Faction (series). Article topic didn't have more than cursory mentions in a video game reliable sources search. Doesn't have significant coverage. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 04:31, 29 April 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor fantasy leagues[edit]

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

Is this type of fantasy league notable? If so, I propose that the contents of this article be merged into Fantasy football (American)#New league types. Otherwise, delete. Natg 19 (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable subjectStaglit (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not provide (nor can I find) any reliable third party sources to assess notability. Fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2014 (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 (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Merreikh Juba[edit]

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

Insignificant teamStaglit (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Staglit (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to withdraw my nomination. I have seen enough evidence to support that this team is relevant and notable. Sorry for the trouble.Staglit (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The team plays in the new top division in South sudan→ see South Sudan Football Championship

→http://www.rsssf.com/tablesz/zsoed2012.html

--Lglukgl (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)The team arrived second in Governor’s finals cup. http://www.gurtong.net/ECM/Editorial/tabid/124/ctl/ArticleView/mid/519/articleId/6560/categoryId/19/Atlabara-Football-Club-Beats-Al-Merreikh-4--0.aspx What do you mean by "insignificant?remember that every team have a hi story, traditions and fans.we must respect every team.[reply]

Al-Hilal (Juba) FC and Al Merreikh Juba plays in the South Sudan Football Championship. The winners of the tournament qualify for 2014 CAF Champions League.

This league is licensed by Fifa and Caf

Keep Apparently in the top division league, which is sufficient for an article. Staglit, what do you mean by "insignificant" and how does that relate to the notability guidelines for athletic teams? Have you even looked to see if it meets the GNG? In what South Sudanese sources have you searched? DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's allright, apparently in the top division league. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD A10, "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Moonga (video game)". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Profoun education[edit]

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

Content has nothing to do with the title.Also, Google search shows hardly any results at all.Staglit (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Staglit (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete As test edit or something. Mangoe (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 10:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Act to incorporate the German Society of Montreal[edit]

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

Not a significant subject. Could be merged with German Society of Montreal. Staglit (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rationale behind writing the article was to back up the article German Society of Montreal with additional information and to create a record of information from legal sources that is not easily found. The German Society is an important cultural institution for Montreal's German population and heritage. Nico Ahn (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge Not really appropriate for a separate article . The rationale is inadequate, as the act has no real significance except in relation to the society. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Articles are created on notable subjects with coverage in reliable and independent sources, not to record every single bit of "not easily found" information. If the law was particularly controversial, with a complex history and tumultuous passage that is widely documented in history books, a separate article might be warranted, but from the article and its minimal sources, there doesn't seem to be much to say about this law. The only sources are official publications, with no commentary from historians or contemporary writers. Hence it makes more sense to cover this in the article on the German Society of Montreal. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After six hours of work had gone into putting together this article, receiving a notice within 1 hour that the article that one's article is unwanted on Wikipedia makes me think twice about contributing in the future. We have moved the article to our website http://www.germansociety.ca/history/incorporation. If this article is kept, it could be linked in a larger article on what happened to colonial laws in Canada after confederation, since it is really quite tricky to find out what laws were kept, repealed or merged into other laws, and who took over jurisdiction (provinces or the federal government). Nico Ahn (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did someone say the content was unwanted? From what I can see, some are ~~!voting~~ responding keep and others merge but no one has suggested it be deleted entirely. If people are ~~!voting~~ responding to keep the content in one form or another it seems to me it isn't unwanted. Even if the content was unwanted, that happens, and it's nothing personal. It's just that not everything belongs in an encyclopedia. Ca2james (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acts of Parliament are normally worthy of notice, which is all that N actually requires. The article isn't overly short and detaching it from the main article increases clarity of presentation, a more important consideration than nitpicking about sources. Amendments and case law, if they exist, are far more important than the writings of historians. This Act is more likely to be cited by chapter than by title, with a great variety of abbreviations and variations that will make searches very difficult. And finding chapter 60 of 1865 or 28 Victoria etc. probably means plowing through large numbers of statutes from other parts of the former British Empire that have the same designation because these people didn't bother to distinguish. A presumption of notability avoids that problem. I am unable to accept the proposition that this Act is not important or likely to have received coverage. In the UK, we have already reached the stage where even private Acts are being revised and are therefore receiving secondary coverage because they are important, so this public Act should have no problem. I have no problem with official publications such as reports of parliamentary proceedings either, because they appear exist, not for the purpose of promotion, but rather to satisy public demand for information. I also do not want us to lose productive new editors because of this kind of nomination, something that happens far too often. James500 (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having given the matter some thought, I think that it is reasonable to assume that there will be case law dealing with the interpretation of the expressions and clauses of this Act, and that the Act will therefore have received at least implicit coverage in digests and like works. (Case law on the use of an expression in one Act may be applicable to its use in another if the context is similar). James500 (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least two of the Sister Societies of the German Society are also governed by their own act from the 1800s. One example is the Act to incorporate the St. Andrew's Society of Montreal (22 Vict 1858, Cap. CXXXVIII) which has provisions that are much more restrictive than those of the Act to incorporate the German Society of Montreal. Nico Ahn (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There isn't enough here for a separate article as the legislation itself is not controversial or far-reaching and its overall impact is minor. This information does have a place in the German Society of Montreal article, however, as it is a piece of that institution's history. Ca2james (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of whether this Act is independently notable (and while I suspect it is, but not being Canadian am reluctant to take that as a firm position), this seems like an excellent application of WP:SPINOUT, allowing additional detail on one aspect of German Society of Montreal which would be tedious over-detail if merged into the main article. If everything in this article were included in the parent, it would appear to be digression. By having it in its own article, it permits a higher level of detail for those who are interested in the Act itself. TJRC (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The organization itself is notable, and the act to incorporate it would be a legitimate thing to mention in the organization's article — but we do not need a separate article about the legislation itself, since it's notable only as an aspect of the organization and not as a thing in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Act is not merely an aspect of the organisation. It is also an aspect of the law of Canada. James500 (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian government has passed many laws over the years that aren't actually noteworthy enough to actually warrant their own independent articles. This is one of them, as the law had no discernible impact on anything except the founding of one specific organization — so while it merits mention in the organization's article, it is not a topic that's sufficiently important in its own right to warrant a separate article. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Act did not found the society. It incorporated the society (which already existed as an unincorporated association) and gave it a variety of powers and duties. I would not be suprised if those powers and duties are not exceptional compared to corporations which are not statutory. Moreover these powers and duties do not exist in a vacuum. They potentially affect other persons, particularly in relation to property. James500 (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with James500's comments. The act does bring up an interesting legal issue. There are many statutes that remain in force in Canadian law that date back to the pre-Confederation time, that are no longer listed in the current statutes. With this act for example, there is also the question if the Society today is under federal or provincial jurisdiction, as the organization was incorporated by something that predates the current jurisdictional structures. TJRC refers to WP:SPINOUT: When I created this Wikipedia article as its own article, it was to make the article about the organization easier to read and to allow for "a higher level of detail" than in the Society's main article. Nico Ahn (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well referenced, so I believe WP:GNG is met. It is, perhaps, a little quirky that we present the day-by-day calendar of how the bill wound its way through the legislative process, but that's OK. If this was about a modern day bill, I would call it trivia, but to have that level of detail about a 150 year old piece of legislation really is the heart and soul of something which calls itself an encyclopedia. One of Wikipedia's flaws is that it is too much about what's happening today, and research is too much about what the almighty Google can serve up on a search results page. Having a well-researched piece on a historical topic is what we want to be encouraging. The German Society of Montreal as an organization, and the piece of legislation which caused it to be formed, are sufficiently distinct concepts that having two articles (each of them, well written, I might add) instead of a single merged one, makes sense. Sorry to have gone on so long. Did I mention that we should keep this article? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notezai[edit]

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

I could find a single piece of evidence that this tribe exists. Staglit (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a nonnotable or nonexistent tribe. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 22:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable tribe, it certainly exists Seasider91 (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above not really a notable tribe. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Keep until a proper search is made, in print as well as online sources.. I found http://notezai.webs.com/ as the first hit in Google, which certainly indicates existence of some group or place of that name. I also find a number of people with that family name, which indicates it might be an extended family or a group--this does not mean it's notable; it means it needs proper searching. Staglit, where exactly did you look, and how did you find time to look if you're patrolling at the rate of, quite literally, two articles a minute -- which you've been doing for several days now. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I search, I found just a few results of people having the last name on Facebook. The site you have found was not anywhere on the first few pages I looked at. Perhaps the results of our searches differ due to past searches, or location? And yes, I look at searches before I flag them. If there is evidence that this is a major tribe, then it should be kept, but I found no evidence of that on my searches. Staglit (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough, if it even exists. Kierzek (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too find evidence that this exists as a personal name, but not as a tribe. It is clear that if it does exist as a tribe then information about the tribe is so hard to come by that there is very little likelihood of its satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The page that DGG links to has every appearance of being a personal web page, which, apart from the page title, does not use the word "Notezai" except as part of the name of the author of the page. The page does not mention any "group or place of that name", and rather than "certainly indicat[ing] existence of some group or place of that name", it appears to merely indicate the existence of a person of the name. In any case, even if such a page did indicate "existence of some group or place of that name", if the best we can do for evidence is such an obscure personal web page, then there is no notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am rather surprised by the number of participants above who have found no evidence of Notezai as a tribe - out of the first twenty GBooks results on the standard search, at least three refer to it as either a tribe or a clan (which can standardly be taken as a close synonym). Having said that, all three seem to be passing references to its participation in the drugs trade - good enough to show existence, but not really as a basis for an article. PWilkinson (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2014 (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 (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Hilal (Juba) FC[edit]

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

Not a major renowned club, barely any google hits in any language Staglit (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to withdraw my nomination. I have seen enough evidence to support that this team is relevant and notable. Sorry for the trouble.Staglit (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure if the league they participate in is professional, only way a club from that division would be notable is if they have ever participated in the African champions league, as there is no proof of that occurring in this case they are not notable Seasider91 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a south sudanese club who currently plays in the new top division of south sudanese football. The winners of the tournament qualify for 2014 CAF Confederation Cup

This league is licensed by Fifa and Caf

--Lglukgl (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So what if they play in a league that can get you qualification to the African champions league? Winning the Welsh premier league gets the club into the qualifying phase of the UEFA champions league. Does that make that league and all of its participants notable? Seasider91 (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is my error the winner qualify to CAF Champions League for example see 2014 CAF Champions League. The second or the winner of south sudan cup qualify for the 2014 CAF Confederation Cup--Lglukgl (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's allright, apparently in the top division league. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is more evidence than mine to support that this is a significant team, then the article should be kept. Does anyone know how to withdraw a nomination? Staglit (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just make a comment and say so. However, since another person has also argued for delete, the csd must be decided in the usual way, but your statement that you want to withdraw it will be given considerable weight. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 22 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Mang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Grace Mang

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

This article should be considered for deletion for the following reasons:

1) The article is a resume, not an encyclopaedia entry. The subject is not noteworthy enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. The article likely meets two criteria for speedy deletion, namely:

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

"Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. It should be noted that "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc. See Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION for the policy on this.

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)

Further information: Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.[5] This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works.

The only evidence that the subject is important is that they gave evidence at The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission. This is not remarkable.

2) Other article contains unsubstantiated claims that are used as evidence to justify the subject's importance.

For example, this un-cited section, which insinuates that the subject is responsible for influencing the behaviour of Sinohydro and changing industry standards: "Mang, with International Rivers, was previously instrumental in getting the world's largest dam builder, Sinohydro, to setcorporate social responsibility targets for their worldwide dam projects for the first time, in effect setting a new standard for the industry." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factwiki1000 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 19 April 2014‎ (UTC) — FactWiki1000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: I have reformatted this nomination using ((Afd2)) Mz7 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Since this is the first AfD, I have moved the nomination from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Mang (2nd nomination) to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Mang". Mz7 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This nomination wasn't properly transcluded to the log. I have added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 21. Mz7 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet notability requirements. She is sometimes quoted in the media as a lobbyist/spokesperson[1] but there are no biographical details or detailed analysis of her work. Being quoted as an acknowledged expert helps to establish notability per WP:PROF but being quoted as a spokesperson does not. To write an article we need relilable sources about her, not just a few quotes. She's written some articles in the media e.g.[2] but in itself that doesn't establish notability. I'm not sure if A7 applies: there are mid-level bureaucratic roles and publications. But she does not meet the higher notability standards. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails general notability requirments, just being quoted in the media is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete widely quoted, but articles are not about her LucyLucyLucyLucy1 (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — LucyLucyLucyLucy1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep in fact meets the notability requirements because of citation in multiple independent secondary sources, as well as being a (cited) subject of an in-depth biographic interview on China Radio International. Also because the example "un-cited" section (referred above) is in fact cited, and also because the achieved environmental policy change in one of the world's largest dam builders is some notable and major impact. Article should be edited so as to make it less of a resume as well as more relevant, and forms the basis of a solid reference for people interested in the field of corporate environmental lobbying.107.150.37.178 (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)TenThousandMen — 107.150.37.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No impact on scholarship seen. No pass of WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Passes WP:GNG reliable, sources, independent of subject, e.g. CRI, Reuters, BBC but fails "significant coverage". Perhaps one notable achievement (Sinohydro CSR) is not enough, especially when the sources there are primary. No obvious merge target. 92.251.255.12 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Cass[edit]

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

Mistaken arrest of an 19th century seamstress falls afoul of WP:ONEEVENT. No lasting impact. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ ~~Subject might be notable but am having difficulty finding RS sources to confirm it. I found one here which I will add to the article. But I don't think it's enough to pass WP:EVENT right now.~~ Am open to reconsideration if better sources are found. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article screams "one event". This might work as a one-sentence reference in the article Victorian attitudes towards working women, but not as a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and try to improve. This was a high enough stakes series if events that Parliament became involved, and it's really multiple events (ie. first the prostitution trial, then the legislative investigation, them the perjury trial) LucyLucyLucyLucy1 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a plausible argument. There are plenty of one event figures we have articles for. It depends on what that one event was and what its impact was. But we still need sources. Right now there is only one very thin source. No reliable sources = no notability = delete. See WP:NRV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the source found by User:Ad Orientem is probably the most substantial reliable one easily found on a Google search, there are quite a few other reliable sources substantial enough for notability - for instance, [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. The "Cass case", as it is often referred to, seems to have had a lot of coverage at the time (even if most of that has apparently never got online) and still attracts a lot of discussion - for instance, in relation to the Pall Mall Gazette's press campaigns, the disparity between expected and actual police behaviour during the case, where and when "respectable" women might or might not go unaccompanied in London's West End at the time, the indirect effects it had on the early stages of the Jack the Ripper investigation, and so on. PWilkinson (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my !vote based on additional sources found. This does sound like it was a big deal at the time and I think any modern case that got similar coverage would have its own article. Sufficient sources now exist for it to pass WP:EVENT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have been improved since nomination. WP:GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2014 (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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Cass[edit]

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

It damns itself by stating that the subject is "mostly known as the brother of Ronald Cass". Notability isn't inherited, and his accomplishments look pretty minor. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. A Google turned up nothing that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability in any of the things she's supposedly known for. Bali88 (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-just put a section about him in his brothers page I think. Wgolf (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G7) by User:FreeRangeFrog. (non-admin closure) Gongshow talk 23:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

세은 미카엘[edit]

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

Non-English and blanked by creator suggesting regret. Tideflat (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2014 (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 E+10 m³[edit]

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

Unnoteworthy subject, zero verification, fails general notability for that reason. Also seems to be failing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pern nom. Absolutely no evidence of notability. I don't think A-7 covers this, but really this should be a speedy delete.-Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing !vote based on clear consensus from editors more knowledgeable on the subject than myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was kept in 2011 as a part of the wider discussion of the many similar pages in Category:Orders of magnitude (volume). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 E+4 m³. The discussion there provides cogent reasons for the retention of these articles, notably that they are appropriate as part of Wikipedia's role as an almanac. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos and past discussion. This article is part of the very useful "orders of magnitude" series. It makes no sense to randomly delete one page in that series. -- 101.117.109.210 (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Past consensus has clearly shown that this article is worth keeping as in contains useful information in the orders of magnitude series. Elassint ^Hi 03:46, 25 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kimdo Bethel[edit]

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

Non notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boxer who fails WP:NBOX, both as an amateur and a professional (where he has yet to beat a fighter with a winning record). The article shows no significant independent coverage of him.Mdtemp (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOX and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso Leng[edit]

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

Not notable article with no verification. Absolutely no references. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lil comment Quick search returns a Spanish article with a number of print references, I just added the merge template to the English article ~Helicopter Llama~ 21:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Did the nominator make any effort to comply with WP:BEFORE? The Spanish Wikipedia article has multiple sources, and English and Spanish language sources are also apparent in a basic GBooks search, such as [8][9][10]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even without the Spanish WP, there are sufficient sources presentely in the article to justify it. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Byrd[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As an amateur boxer, he would have to have made it to the final of a national championship to be notable per WP:NBOX, but this individual does not appear to have met that qualification. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Only links are to his amateur and pro fight records and there's a big difference between the 3 amateur fights in the linked source and the 57 amateur fights claimed.Mdtemp (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do remember him boxing (partly because his name was so close to my favorite basketball player's name and cause his fights were always listed on Ring Magazine's "results" pages) but he was not notable, never even fought for a significan title. Antonio tu bello Martin (que es?) 12:27, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2014 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Brill[edit]

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

Only sources are not reliable. Deprodded because deprodder thinks there are good sources out there, but I'm not seeing them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's evidence of her touring from Illinois to Georgia. Reliability of the sourcing is questionable, but I think she passes WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage includes Billboard, CMT, Chicago Sun-Times, Knoxville News Sentinel (a local write-up, but seems to contain some worthwhile biographical info), and some shorter blurbs at country-specific sites [11][12][13]. On the whole, there is enough material to pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 23:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gongshow's analysis and the argument in my DEPROD edit. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - upon a review of sources in this discussion and in the article, the subject meets WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 26 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Safoian[edit]

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

Non-notable COI spam. The sources almost exclusively are press releases or sources written by Safoian's employees, with one of the two truly independent sources (the Inc. article) not mentioning Safoian and being misrepresented in the draft. Huon (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's analysis - I too am unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources for this person. Gongshow talk 23:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. Maybe someday; he's young. The article's authors have tried hard, but there is just insufficient coverage about him. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2014 (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. As noted by Arthur Rubin, the crux of the debate rests largely on whether filk is a sufficiently notable/significant genre that Robinson can be considered notable as a prominent producer of it. Although it's a close argument well-argued on both sides (and certainly much closer than simply counting keep vs. delete !votes would suggest), I find there is just about a consensus that yes, both genre and artist are notable. (In other news, I now have massive semantic satiation of the word 'filk'.) Olaf Davis (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: it's been brought to my attention that the original wording of the above could have potentially been interpreted as a slur against the subject's gender identity. This was absolutely not my intention, and I apologise for my careless wording. I have changed it accordingly. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Robinson (filk musician)[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. The albums appear to be self released. Pegasus awards are given from a single convention, and there are no criteria for nomination, or who can vote. Similarly the Filk hall of fame is an award given inside the con community and has zero notability outside fandom. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep - Most awards for genre music get little notice outside the fandom of that genre. By this argument, any awards other than Grammies are worthless because they are only voted on by people who listen to that kind of music. WP:MUSICBIO #7: "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style". Within filk music, a recognized musical genre, Robinson is quite famous. And the "self-released" accusation is just plain false: Dr. Jane's Science Notes was released by Off Centaur, for example. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Off Centaur still wouldn't meet #5 of WP:MUSICBIO, Pegasus certainly doesn't meet #8. #7 could possibly be met if filk is truly notable, but since it isn't actually a style of music, but just a social mechanism for making and enjoying music, I'm not sure that would qualify. This is one club, giving out an award from inside the club, for basically having an open mic jam sessions . Gaijin42 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convention Guest of Honor positions are not "open mike jam sessions". They are a recognition that the person is (1) a significant person within the SF community, and (2) likely to help bring in paid memberships (SF conventions need to cover expenses, and paid memberships are the biggest source of funds). The "guest of honor," "featured filker," etc. position usually comes with a one-hour solo concert, on a stage with multiple mics. A music guest appearance at a filk-oriented convention or major SF regional will probably mean an audience of 100+ people, sitting quietly and listening to the music they enjoy.

And yes, Filk is not a "style," because we sing folk-style and jazz-style and rock-style and rap and spoken poetry. But it _is_ a genre, defined by subject matter and -- perhaps most important -- a concentration on lyrics as a means to "render emotional the audience" to borrow a phrase from Heinlein. Filk is not something you dance to or talk over, it is something you actively listen to.

Lean toward Keep; as filk is a style of music defined by fandom, and, although the Pegasus awards are parallel to the People's Choice Awards, as anyone can vote, the Filk Hall of Fame is selected by a self-selected, but recognized, "jury". I'd put the Filk Hall of Fame as meeting WP:MUSICBIO #8. That, plus, the fact she^{[notes 1]} actually does have a recognized (but, according to her song, incorrect) theory on Plesiosaur locomotion, seems to add sufficient notability. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=%22Jane+Robinson%22+plesiosaur , specifically the reference in http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-53748-6_9 (although not in the free section) " Jane Robinson ( 1975 ) who published the first ..." . As I cannot access the full content, I cannot be sure that this is adequate, but it appears she was recognized as an expert in Plesiosaur locomotion at one time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I am a personal friend of the subject, so I should keep WP:COI in mind. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

Are you saying you think that 2 papers would push them over the bar of WP:NACADEMICS? (One of them was cited 71 times, but we probably should go ask the biologiy or palentology wikiprojects what their general standard for citation threshhold is. The first source google has as citing that paper itself has 622 citations. Using the data you provided, s/he has an h-index of 2?) And that the Filk hall of fame is " a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award."? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Lack of coverage in reliable sources (filk websites do not automatically count as reliable sources). Unless there is coverage which I missed on a Google search and which the article editors have not provided. It's ok to get coverage within a niche community if that community produces reliable publications - e.g. contemporary experimental jazz has a miniscule following but still produces learned publications with expert writers. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the category:filkers is small, and this is probably one of the more notable ones. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, the others should surely all be deleted. This one has 4 refs, all which appear to be self hosted websites of filk/fandom clubs. Not a single mainstream reference, not even local newspaper garage-band type coverage . Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia generally, at WP:RS, and WP:MUSICBIO specifically, does not require specific types of sourcing. Your logic would require the elimination of otherwise notable persons merely because they filked. I'm just asserting that this person passes barely, but is most notable as a filker; otherwise I would have !voted !full !keep. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are probably beating a dead horse at this point,so I will let the conversation go on without me from here on most likely. you are asserting that these filk websites meet WP:RS? They seem like WP:SPS highly WP:QUESTIONABLE sources to me. WP:MADEUP for the most part. Certainly I am not advocating deletion BECAUSE someone filks - what someone's hobby (or more for some) is is of no relevance to notability. More power to them for having something in their life they love, and getting recognized for it from their friends. The question here is is that of encyclopedic value. There are a great many clubs and organizations that give out awards to their members, many national and international with membership and notability much higher than fandom and filking. Is being given such an award by the org, with no notice outside the org, truly a sign of notability? That seems like a massive expansion of WP:GNG (or the other notability guidelines in case of genre clubs like music here) to me. Boy scout troop leader hall of fame? New York Life Chairman's Circle? costumecon hall of fame? Pokemon hall of fame Has anyone other than the filk community written in any significant way about this award, the people who won the award, or even really filking itself? (Can I major in filk at some conservatory? Any music historians writing papers/books about it? A ken burns style documentary about famous filkers?Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Has anyone other than the filk community written in any significant way about...filking?" Will NPR do? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4967052 How about Texas A&M? http://library.tamu.edu/about/news-and-events/2014/01/Science%20Fiction%20Collection%20adds%20Filk%20Materials%20as%20Deeper%20than%20Swords%20Exhibit%20Closes.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.222.66 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted folklorist Jan Harold Brunvand wrote about filk in his 1998 American Folklore: An Encyclopedia, Media Studies: A Reader also discusses filk, as does The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media. Shsilver (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin, I will admit that I have committed filk myself; but the sheer snobbery, the ad hominem contempt that is necessary to attack the entirety of the decades-long filking community as falling under "WP:MADEUP for the most part", fair takes my breath away. Please re-read WP:BELONG, WP:GHITS, and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notability question seems to require the question of whether Filk music is a notable (if alternative) genre. If so, then the Pegasus Award or Filk Hall of Fame would be notable awards, per WP:ANYBIO #1 or WP:MUSICBIO #8. Also, whether he might qualify under WP:NMUSIC#Others #4 the genre being Filk Music, and the sub-sub-genre being paleontology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forgive me for commenting as I haven't been on Wikipedia in years, but I think I can add to the discussion. When I produced Shockwave Radio, I played the Dr. Jane CDs often. Not merely for the filking (which were separate shows) but for the science commentary. At the time when it was making news, her song "Who Owns The Bones" about Sue the Dinosaur was a very useful overview. Very few of her songs are what I would call pure "filk" (parody of another song by and for science fiction fans). Most are humorous, and stand on their own to an educated audience. The Dr. Jane CDs are aimed at college/college graduate audience, closer to Tom Lehrer than most Pegasus winners I know of. Baron Dave Romm (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the risk of releasing the deletion trolls, are you next planning on eliminating all references to the Hugo and Nebula Awards and any authors who have won them, on the grounds that you consider science fiction awards only notable within their own field? Filk is a muscial subgenre that has been around for many years; just because you don't personally like it doesn't mean you should start deleting it. Kevin Standlee (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guideline should be inclusive, not a checklist. Question should be is the genre notable, and then if so, whether the musician or group is notable within the genre. Deleting all cultural references that aren't about pop culture calls into question Wikipedia's purpose as a reference source. Avt tor (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is of encyclopedic value in that it is of use to cultural anthropology/sociology scholars. - Davodd (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- musician in a sub genre that has not itself established significant notability outside its own circles. Here the Hugo and Nebula award comparison fails, since there are many of mainstream publications that reference them, but far far fewer that reference filk or the Filk Hall of Fame, and no citations I can find outside of those circles. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as crossing the verifiability and notability thresholds. Notability is not a matter of opinion so the nominator's feelings about filk music are irrelevant to the subject's notability. - Dravecky (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Filk music is a small genre. [I have corrected these figures based on numbers supplied by Eli Goldberg of Prometheus Music, one of the most active current producers of Filk CDs] The typical Filk CD sells perhaps 1,000-1,500 copies, with major artists selling as many as 2,500 copies, plus the equivalent of perhaps 200 more CDs in paid digital downloads. But it is a recognized genre, with its own gatherings of 100-200 people: 6 in the US, 2 in the UK, one in Germany. Within the genre, Dr. Jane Robinson was a major name, brought as a guest to several general SF Fandom conferences including Marcon 39^[1], Capricon XXIV^[2], Norwescon XVII^[3], ConFurence 8^[4](Furry convention) and Loscon 34^[5], plus three Filk-specific conventions: Counterpoint Too!^[6](the second NEFilk con), Filkontario 2003^[7] and Toastmaster at Consonance 1994^[8]. In addition, "Dr. Jim" is one of the people who keep Fanfare Music (the Nonprofit that runs Consonance) going. People outside of SF fandom may not have heard of Dr. Jane/Dr. Jim, but those of us in the fandom -- and especially those who sing, listen to, or go to Filk conventions -- know him to be one of the top 10 for notability within the genre, as attested by the convention cites above. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added three Filk cons to the list of places where Dr. Jane has been GoH. 3 Filk conventions and five non-filk conventions. Is that enough "notability" for the doubters? If you aint a subject matter expert, maybe you should consult one before proposing a deletion... Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 specifically excludes "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.", and " articles that simply report performance dates" and WP:SPS WP:UGC sites also don't count, I would likely still say no, it is not enough notability. Filking has not received a lot of notice outside of filking. Maybe that's an indictment against mainstream media and culture, but that is the core of WP:N. Beyond W:N the quality of these sourcing in these articles is running pretty hard against WP:V WP:RS and WP:BLP (WP:SPSBLP in particular, which says "never" not "unless its flattering and promotional") Gaijin42 (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By Gainin42's argument, the following articles should also be deleted:

Filk Music
Filk Hall of Fame
Banned From Argo
Leslie Fish
Ohio Valley Filk Fest
Pegasus Award
FilkOntario

Either Filk Music is a notable genre, and its most notable performers and writers are notable, or the entire genre and its conventions, awards, etc. are not notable and should be deleted.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I am a contributor to the Dr. Jane article as well as to several other articles about Filk music.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who thinks that Filk is just a "social mechanism" should try listening to the filk that sells. Examples:

* Plus Ca Change (Kathy Mar): http://www.last.fm/music/Kathy+Mar/Plus+%C3%87a+Change You can listen to "Drink up the River" and "Velveteen" for free.

* Retro Rocket Science http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bohnhoff1

* Grendel by Leslie Fish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRnKtWsNDBA&index=6&list=PLABE69790BAE395B3

* Chickasaw Mountain Deal by Leslie Fish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1hUf4qYwbM

* Daddy's Little Girl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGNNDFrQ3HI
Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the article clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject both within the small world of filk and (by the con GoH invitations) in the much larger world of SF/fantasy fandom, where filk has long been one of the mainstay con activities. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a small genre, but it's multigenerational at this point, and that durability counts for something. Also, I run a small music festival (nwcMUSIC, which is, yes, connected to an SF convention, Norwescon) and I book electronica and nerdcore and folk acts... and also filkers. And despite the fact that we don't have a strong filker culture at our event - we really don't - people still come to see these shows. Hell, more people show up for the filk acts like Vixy & Tony than for the nerdcore or the electronica, so it's not just filkers talking to themselves - it's fan culture in general that knows. Solarbird (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This artist meets several of the critera under "For composers and performers outside mass media traditions:"

* She was one of the first recorded filk artists (if not the first one) to play an electric instrument. This opened the door to other artists playing electronic instruments and filk music that wasn't folk-styled.

* Dr. Jane has composed dozens of tunes within the filk genre. Several of Dr. Jane's songs have gone on to win a Pegasus award.

* Many of Dr. Jane's songs have been referenced in Xenofilkia, a publication devoted to filk songs and parodies of them.

By the way, most of Dr. Jane's tapes or CDs (and those on which she appears) were not "self-published." She appears on many compilation recordings from science fiction conventions. Figmo (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the above listed reasons. By many of the criteria specified for Dr. Robinson's deletion, even notable folk, much less filk, might come under fire, and Dr. Robinson is very much a notable filker. Also, not finding a subject with just one single Google search is hardly proof of non-notability. It took me about 30 seconds to locate [www.lasfsinc.info/loscon/34/jamesrobinson.pdf‎ this link to a guest-of-honor PDF flyer for the Los Angeles Science Fiction Society's convention], and LASFS is not a purely filk-oriented organization, and a further 15 seconds to find this article in the San Francisco Chronicle, often considered a newspaper of record. That second piece also interviews Robinson in his capacity as chairman of Consonance, a major international filk convention. These results could mean that the original search was simply poorly constructed, and several other search engines are cited in the search engine test criteria. Either way, the results I uncovered in my 45-second investigation suggest that no original research is required to secure Dr. Robinson's place as a notable artist in a notable genre.

Additionally, while I agree that not all filk websites are automatically considered reliable sources of information, ovff.org in particular definitely is. The Ohio Valley Filk Festival is 30 years old as of this October. As for the "lack of coverage" complaint, is NPR not sufficient to confirm the notability of filk? Here's a story from 2010 about the genre.

As for complaints about the lack of a filk major at well-known conservatories, typically, most music majors at most universities specialize in composition, theory, and specific instruments--and then only sub-specialize in genres once they've picked an instrument or two. Speaking of that, there's only one university that offers a major in heavy metal, New College in Nottingham, UK. The vast majority of music genres that have emerged in the past 50 years--EDM (Electronic Dance Music), hip-hop, and other non-traditional formats have sporadic class offerings at university, with very few institutions offering full major courses of study. Lack of inclusion at university is a completely invalid criterion for non-notability, and certainly doesn't argue for non-inclusion on Wikipedia.

In any event, it is my considered opinion that the information presented by all those above strongly suggests that anyone interested in folk music might be interested in filk music, and that anyone interested in filk music would definitely be interested in Dr. James Robinson, one of the foremost voices in the genre (literally and figuratively). Thank you for your time and consideration.Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 07:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that one or two people are trying to determine 'notability' and 'reliability' within a sub-genre in which they are totally ignorant. Apparently, the reasons behind asking for deletion have not been researched (or not been researched properly), and may have been done for reasons not having to do with either notability or reliability of the sources. ohmikeghod — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entire argument for deletion rests on Filk as a musical form being non-notable--having no external papers, articles, etc. That's clearly untrue, as easy research indicates -- see [14], [15], [16], etc. Joshua Kronengold (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Notes

^ Pronoun selected per his personal preference. He refers to his actions before the transition using the female pronoun. Arthur Rubin

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) As indicated in several comments below, Feruz has receieved extensive coverage in third-party, reliable sources; a clear consensus exists for keeping this article, in accordance with WP:GNG. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Feruz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Feruz has not played a full-team match for Celtic, Scotland or Chelsea. Previous nomination included as a reason to keep the fact that he is from an immigrant background, which is not a peculiarity unusual enough to change the general basis that a notable footballer is one who has played a full-team match for a professional club. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You don't have to have played a professional game to meet WP:GNG and that overrides football notability guidelines. This individual meets GNG with sources included in article and a further google search finds enough to satisfy me that he meets that, despite not meeting WP:NFOOTBALL.Blethering Scot 20:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to satisfy WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has got wide coverage from 3rd party sources so passes the GNG Seasider91 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as easily passes GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article cites a large number of reliable sources providing substantial coverage beyond routine match reporting and transfer speculation. Yes, an NFOOTY failure, but in this instance a rare example of a player who has not yet played in a fully professional league who has been the subject of lengthy discussion / reporting in national news outlets. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG, which makes his professional appearances (or lack of them!) irrelevant. Giant Snowman 11:38, 24 April 2014 (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 Brevard College. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J.A. Jones Library[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Merge: Some of the content of this article could be used as part of an effort to expand the Brevard College beyond a stub, although it would require some cleanup for tone and it would be nice to have secondary sources. However, on its own, the library doesn't appear to have any notability not inherited from the college. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Brevard College. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a good idea. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2014 (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. slakr^\ talk / 09:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Lambec[edit]

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

I see an absence of independent sources for notability, as distinguished from mere existence ( I can't judge the book for ref 2, but from the title I doubt it shows more than existence. If it does have any significant information, we should have a quote and page numbers in order to show it. ) DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and as run of the mill: at less than 100 acres, this is small for an overnight camp. None of the sources are independent of the churches involved. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though perhaps should be moved to Camping Association of the Presbyteries of Northwestern Pennsylvania, which is the charitable nonprofit that runs this 92-acre camp plus another camp, Westminster Highlands, a 500+ acre camp. I added a bit to the article, including that Guidestar verifies it is a 501c3 organization, although IRS form 990 financial statements are not currently available. Otherwise i would have added financial size info. But this seems long-running, there would be substantial coverage in newspapers and other off-internet sources over the years. --do ncr am 01:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination appears to think that wp:notability is determined by looking at the sources in an article, and admits to making no attempt to review even all of the sources there before starting this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that doncram has the right take on this topic. There are three related topics, two camps and the non-profit. The information says that the non-profit holds title to the 600 acres. While associated with the Synod of the Trinity, the non-profit appears to be an independent organization. The topic is also associated with four of the sixteen presbyteries of the Trinity of the Synod, those being the presbyteries of Beaver/Butler, Kiskiminetas, Lake Erie, and Shenango. Satisfies WP:GNG, and has sixty years of history. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as serving as essentially a advertisement for the camp which has no external notability. See WP:ORG. jps (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I spent some time on Google and Google scholar trying to find any notability, but was unsuccessful. Ward20 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did not do an extensive search, keep argument are understandable. Found something here [17] possible PR, google books also show several sources. Camp seems to have a solid history and I am not seeing advert tone. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No delete !votes have provided evidence beyond a personal opinion, and only one of the five reports the minimal level of searching specified by WP:BEFORE. Show your work. Unscintillating (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I've had a look at the sources referred to by User:Valoem, but I'm only seeing trivial or brief mentions. It might be helpful if some of these supposed sources that help this camp meet the WP:GNG could be noted here, rather than simply asserting they exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Your !vote argues an absence of evidence provided by Valoem, but an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Show your work. Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the google books section there are multiple sources. I cannot determine the RS of the sources though. There is one 2000 Guide to ACA-Accredited Camps, stating that this is a listed camp which "meets industry standards for safety, programming, staffing, health care, food service, and more". I am editing from a location where I can not access religious website. Please have a look at these webpage Presbyterian Mission and Syn Trinity (I cannot access them). Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I looked at Google, but I saw very little that was useful for Wikipedia. In Google Scholar, there is a single source, and that is published by a single Presbytery. The only "hook" that this camp is notable would be that the ecology of the camp is unique, as may be seen from several sources at Google Books - but, as far as I can tell, this is the only reliable source that I saw with more than passing mention of the camp. Many of the other book sources are merely listings of where to send one's child to camp, or where to get a summer job as a counsellor. Again, the only possible assertation of notability is its physical environment; the fact that it is a 100-acre wooded camp is just not notable, and in fact is sort of stereotypically mundane. If sources were found, and added to the stub, then I would change my mind. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per this diff, Bearian is withdrawing from further discussion here. Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomen, Lankiveil, and Bearian; most listed sources are biased anyways. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources need to be both in depth and independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:GNG actually says is, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Crawford (historian)[edit]

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

We received an inquiry about this article via OTRS 2014041510022021, which prompted me to take a closer look at it. It doesn't look to me like this guy passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. His books were either printed by a very small or even self-owned press (See [18]), and his awards seem very regional. I simply can't find enough to verify notability. If we do wind up finding enough to keep it, it needs to be cleaned a bit - with content like "due to his expansive knowledge of the subject", it truly does come across as a promotional piece. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet GNG, nor are awards sufficient or published work sufficiently weighty in academic use for pass under academic special notability low bars. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem notable. Points made by Carrite are quite valid. No indication of notable scholarship. Intothat darkness 21:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft. Although nobody explicitly suggested this, I'm going to move this to draft. People can continue to work on it there, and when it has garnered sufficient independent, reliable, sources to meet notability guidelines, it can be moved back to the main article space. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to draft version: Draft:Wiki Education Foundation

Wiki Education Foundation[edit]

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

This organization is brand new, and has not yet (to my knowledge, and based on some searching) received attention in the media. While this does appear likely to happen, we should be mindful of WP:CRYSTAL. (Although this appears to be an uncontroversial decision, I have chosen AfD instead of PROD or Speedy in order to have a little more transparency in an organizational launch that is rapidly unfolding.) -Pete (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Pete (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator: First of all, a deletion is not necessary when the content is accurate, the formatting is compliant with MoS and the likelihood of this article having to be re-created is high. If anything, a temporary redirect to Wikimedia Foundation (or related) would be more appropriate, though my vote is to let the article live and snowball. There is nothing wrong with a short article, and there are other sources that could be incorporated into it right now (and surely more in the immediate future). It would be more beneficial to Wikipedia to spend a few moments expanding the article, rather than discussing its deletion. My two cents! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as representative of the organization: While obviously I would prefer to have a Wikipedia article about the Wiki Education Foundation exist, and I thank Another Believer for his hard work on the article, I understand if the lack of outside media coverage of the Wiki Education Foundation means the article should be deleted at this point in time. Following Wikipedia policy is important, and I wouldn't ask for an exception for our organization. I hope to encourage media attention in the coming months; once that's been established, perhaps creating this article could be re-considered? --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LiAnna. I agree, no exceptions should be made. I'm sure there are many other short articles about other companies and organizations, too. To me, the fact that this organization is related to Wikipedia is irrelevant. (Of course, its relation to Wikipedia is how I know about WEF.) Again, my hope is that the article will be kept and grow, or at worst be redirected until more press coverage exists. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice amount of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per LiAnna (Wiki Ed), with no prejudice against subsequent reconsideration. I would likewise hope that the WEF becomes notable in time. Thus far, there are clearly not enough sources to claim that it is at present. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say delete, but the organization does not seem ready for a Wikipedia article yet. It might become so in the future. How about userfying it to the creator, User:Another Believer, to preserve their good start until the day when independent reliable sourcing becomes available? --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I won't !vote, since I'm on the board of the organization, but I will just note that LiAnna's and Jbmurray's comments make sense to me. We've no desire for special treatment -- if sufficient sources don't yet exist, then there shouldn't be an article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:22, 30 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed Indian videos on YouTube[edit]

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

Viewer count manipulation on YouTube is evidently established through various examples in history. Check the list of these examples at List of most viewed YouTube videos's references section. In such a case, YouTube can not be used as a source to establish viewer count. Primary sources can anyways be not used. No secondary sources have been provided for the figures; nor has any source been provided for rankings. Even if hunted down, i doubt a "list" can be presented which meets our WP:RS requirements. Some entries can be backed by references. But those would be very few. Until then this is WP:OR. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significance in the subject of the articleStaglit (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"'No delete"' article should be improveUser:Pravesh.rockstar (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a little surprised we have a list of most viewed YouTube videos (although the topic does attract media attention and I won't argue to delete that), but to provide subsidiary lists by nationality is excessive. Maybe if the Indian media devoted a lot of attention to tracking the most-viewed Indian YouTube video it might be kept, but when I google the topic, there are a few hits on forums, but a lack of coverage in reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Gene93k, I'm surprised that such articles exist. Lacks references and although they can be added from sites like these, I doubt they count as WP:RS. WorLD8115 (TalK) 04:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t seen anyone disagree with User:Gene93k at AfDs. He is always perfect there.

. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I meant User:Colapeninsula, my mistake. WorLD8115 (TalK) 15:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-this is such a random most viewed list, is there a most viewed American? Most viewed music videos on youtube or film trailers? Nope! Wgolf (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basingstoke Hyenas[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur, recreational, local rink hockey team. Neil Hampshire (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable ice hockey club. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, the leagues don't have pages for them, so no reason for this team to have one. Elassint ^Hi 16:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - source searches are not providing coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:N for a Wikipedia article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. None of the details in the article made sense.. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seizo Ishikawa[edit]

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

Article has been completely unsourced since its creation in July 2012. A quick search indicates that a person by this name was a lieutenant junior grade in the Japanese military and did participate in the Battle of Makin as the article claims, but I could find no sources to back up any other claims in the article. The tags on the article indicate that an article by this name was deleted from Italian Wikipedia in February 2014. If consensus is to keep then the article needs to be stubbed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time to scrap unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is total rubbish. The article has him becoming governor of Korea at age 18! It has Japan invading China in 1922! It's not a problem of sourcing--none of this is true! (Of course, there are no Japanese sources about such a person.) It is a shame this has lasted this long. Michitaro (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2014 (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) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11 December 2013 Euromaidan assault[edit]

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

Barely sourced and seems to be very biased and one-sided Jac16888 ^Talk 16:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Written like a news article, very biased. Staglit (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a need for this. It's a notable topic with lots of potential references which are being added by the original creator. If this article was cleaned up it would of course be of more use to Wikipedia, however. I agree, it is somewhat biased, but a copyedit and some rewriting would fix that. § DDima 16:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing against the topic, I think there probably is an article to be had here, however this current version is so biased that it is breaking the group version of BLP (can't remember the page), and Wikipedia would be better served deleting this and letting somebody start fresh--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- 'Looks 2 me like some pretty typical sourcing for UA-related articles and info well laid out. Clearly a notable event in EM. What I see here is poor English, hardly a reason for an AfD. This is my favorite line: "Berkut suspended the assault and Protestants (my emphasis :) ) were giving Berkut the shields, obtained from them..." Paavo273 (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the critical moments of the Euromaidan. NickSt (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2014 (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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (About a Boy)[edit]

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

The article has no sources, is entirely a plot summary, and has not been added to any categories. IPadPerson (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is a PLOT for a TV show that does not indicate that it is notable. - Pmedema (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC) - Keep Changes/additions to the article show that my original argument is no longer valid. - Pmedema (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Lead indicates a large viewership. Cats have been added. FWIW, I have not seen this show. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like this episode has been reviewed/covered in multiple reliable sources - [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26], which I've added to the article in case these are helpful in creating "Critical reception"/"Production"/"Ratings" sections. Gongshow talk 23:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. About a Boy (TV series)#Episodes. Listing umpteen external review links is just lazy. Add them in prose form or redirect. — Wylie pedia 08:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now that I've found more time, I have incorporated several sources within the article body. The expansion should, in my view, remove any doubt as to the topic's notability, but if not, I welcome further constructive feedback. Gongshow talk 11:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gongshow has done a good job in adding referenced content and showing notability. I'm not sure that every episode of the show will merit a separate article, but that is irrelevant. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. About as complete as an episode article can be now. — Wylie pedia 12:27, 23 April 2014 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Borish[edit]

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

The article fails to meet Wiki notability standards and relies heavily on primary sources (Jamescur (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamescur -- the nom -- is a sock of an indef-blocked user, and Jamescur has been blocked indefinitely. Epeefleche (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Obviously meets GNG, as a google search shows. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epeefleche's additions to the article. Gongshow talk 23:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the extensive recent enhancements to the article by Epeefleche, I too now support keeping the article. (Jamescur (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Jamescur -- before nominating any other articles for AfD, please do a wp:before search. If appropriate RS refs exist, don't nominate the article. The refs need not be in the article -- they only have to exist. When you nominate an article that is clearly notable, as this one was--unambiguously, it wastes the time of the community. Tx. Epeefleche

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Epeefleche. Finnegas (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 09:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sir Boss[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL uni band, completely devoid of significant coverage and notability. Was apparently created with WP:COI issues. The last time we were here it was also deleted by Gaijin42 (talk · contribs) and McMarcoP (talk · contribs). As an aside, a demonstration of how not to approve draft articles. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band passes:

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; :note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Signature copied from "Barney has been involved" below, timestamp may not be accurate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources including: FMV Magazine and Female First coverage from BBC: BBC and BBC, and coverage from Huffington Post. There are also multiple other citations from less RS sources which can be used along side with RS to establish notability such as Drunken Werewolf, and Entertainment Focus. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Signature copied from "Barney has been involved" below, timestamp may not be accurate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Barney has been involved in personal attacks here. The version we see now has passed AfC. Barney does not understand the term spam and was warned by multiple editors for personal attacks seen here. The COI attack is completely out of line. My edit history clearly shows no COI. It is an ANI incident now and possible bad faith. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of which, if it were true (which it isn't), is entirely irrelevant and does nothing to confirm the notability of this unimportant student music group. Please do try to stay on topic and not whine about personal attacks, when you haven't got a decent argument to put forward. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. We have mix of trivial coverage (about other people/bands) from reliable sources and in-depth coverage from unreliable sources, but what we're lacking is non-trivial coverage from multiple, reliable sources as our notability policies require. Note that the other notability criteria, such as touring and prominence, also require reliable sourcing. Maybe at a later time, but the sources don't meet our requirements right now. Woodroar (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND, no evidince of notability. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerical note Some edits have been moved around and modified without updating the timestamps. The timestamps in comments should not be relied upon as accurate for the entire comment to which they seem to apply. Check the edit history if this becomes important. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm the WP:AFC reviewer to analyze contents and sources of the article against Wikipedia notability guideline for inclusion and some other WP:PG, and to find the submission appropriate to move to the articles mainspace. WP:COI is not a reason of deletion, neither does the last AFD discussion (see, WP:DEL#Reason).

Why it should be kept and we better contribute our efforts to improve the present article, because WP:BAND, yes, the same reason, cited above for deletion. WP:BAND says,

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

This coverage alone, helps the subject to reach #10 and #12 criteria of WP:BAND. FMV magazine, Huff. post, Femalefirst.co.uk, Entertainment-focus.co.uk are the wp:secondary, wp:independent and wp:reliable sources that helps the subject to reach the #1 criteria of WP:BAND and as well as, the WP:GNG standard.

I notice, there are some differences between some editors here, as such my edit to delete the redirect and move the article from AFC to main space was reverted (diff. link) and the AFC submission, I reviewed was tagged for speedy deletion (diff. link). Here, speedy declined for obvious reasons by an admin Favonian (diff. link) but it didn't stop. We now see the article here, at AFD (diff. link). I've provided diff. links, because it looks like a WP:DUCK, that User:Barney the barney barney has some differences with the User:Valoem and as a result of which community is engaged [perhaps] into an unnecessary discussion. And, interesting enough, I've found, most of the times, it is the experienced editors who violate WP:NPA. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator has made some questionable comments on Tokyogirl79's talk page stating:

"I'm afraid that Valoem (talk · contribs)'s "high road" is somewhat below the epic alpine heights of mine, and I shall be staying out of this and I am confident that I will be vindicated by the deletion of this pathetic article" which suggests a personal motive as the reason for deletion. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND criterion 12. This band was the subject of a significant broadcast segment on BBC Radio 1. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Trends shows that “Yes Sir Boss” is less popular than Potassium ferrocyanide.[[27]] Wikipedia should not be giving free advertising to a rinky-dink garage band. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since when do we use "popularity" to gauge notability? Flat Out let's discuss it 22:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You’ll note that WP:BAND says that a band “may” be notable if it meets certain criteria. WP:BAND does not say that a band is automatically entitled to an article if it meets the criteria. Also, if you’ll read the final bullet point under WP:GNG you will note that it says that “significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included”. Ultimately it comes down to an editorial decision and consensus, and as editors trying to find a consensus we can use other methods to determine if a band should get an article, and one of those methods can very well be Google Trends.

Consider this; Atomik Harmonik (an exceptionally obscure turbo-folk group from Slovenia) was 26 times more popular than “Yes Sir Boss” is right now when it received a Wikipedia article in 2005.[[28]] 76.107.171.90 (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What policy are you invoking? Whatever you're citing is irrelevant to notability only reliable sources matter. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just quoted a policy that indicates that reliable sources do not guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia and you tell me that “only reliable sources matter”? Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Also you should note that h-indexes are routinely used in deletion discussions, so the consideration of factors beyond just reliable secondary sources is by no means unprecedented. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:BAND. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing there (or even here) that currently meets either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. To address an above comment, AND at the risk of someone invoking WP:OTHERCRAPTHANKFULLYDOESNTEXIST, I've personally been the "subject of a significant broadcast segment on BBC", and I'm not even notable enough for an article. Some sources are from the college, others are the band website, others are just plain non-significant to deem as WP:RS for such a tremendously minor band. the panda ₯’ 23:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly WP:TOOSOON; time will tell. Today, does not meet WP:BAND. Miniapolis 23:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what part of WP:BAND does this article fail? It seems like a plea for WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST. Perhaps if Panda's band has the same coverage it may warrant an article on Wikipedia, show me some sources and I may write one for you :) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: People here, !voting delete, because they want the article to get deleted. Their !votes are either, WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:ASSERTN. It is an another AfD, where I'm amazed to see admins casting their vote (not !vote). Like above some person repeated, "Delete, because does not meet WP:Band".

I invite them all to review the article and related notability criteria and sources cited in the article again, to draw a conclusion. The article is about a BAND, therefore, WP:BAND would apply here, not any other, as such WP:BIO or WP:MUSICIAN.

WP:BAND says, A band is notable if it meets at least one of the criteria given, and the subject does meet, not one but at least two:

#12 - "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." - Yes, Click here to verify.
#1 - "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" - FMV magazine, Huff. post, Femalefirst.co.uk, Entertainment-focus.co.uk, BBC, are neither from colleges nor from the band website. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:BAND does not say "A band is notable if it meets at least one of the criteria given". WP:BAND says "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" GB fan 12:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: - And this is really what makes this band non-notable? At least talk like an experienced editor. By your argument "no band is notable on wikipedia" because notability guideline says, "may be". Ridiculous, indeed! Let me enlighten you a little, no Wikipedia notability guideline directly says, subject is notable for meeting a criteria. All notability guideline (go review) says, "may be" or "presumed". I never witnessed this kind of argument in any AfD, I ever have been involved. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the band was not notable, I am still assessing and have not made up my mind if I believe the band is notable. You are correct that no notability guideline says that a subject is notable. These are all editorial decisions based on the evidence available about the particular subject. You misrepresented what WP:BAND says in your statement above when you said: "WP:BAND says, A band is notable if it meets at least one of the criteria given" I was just pointing out to you that WP:BAND does not say what you claimed it says. GB fan 15:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was a bit confusing because an IP has already cited this, "may be" as an argument against inclusion of the subject. Your earlier argument was some-what similar. Coming back to the point, if all notability guideline says, "may be" and "presumed" and we do follow and have been following the same, then it is the same case, where subject qualifies for inclusion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to me that this band passes WP:GNG based on the multiple RS reviews cited above plus the BBC broadcast coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND and per DangerousPanda. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence that this subject passes our notability standards. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Darling[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing, beyond a brief mention on a list of performers arrested for working at a trade show while on a tourist visa. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD bulk-removed (apparently via rollback) with a null edit summary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject appears to be notable, at least within the Czech Republic, as shown by her past award wins at the Czech Adult Film Awards and the coverage here. The coverage here doesn't hurt a claim towards at least a marginal pass of the GNG as well. Guy1890 (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the "Czech Adult Film Awards" apparently don't exist (a whopping 4, count them, four, Google hits) -- and it's not likely a mere translation problem, as no similar awards, under any names, are mentioned in the subject's Euro-language wikiarticles, even the Czech article [29] -- it's hard to see them as "well-known" and "significant", and it's also hard to see the article reporting on them as meeting RS requirements, especially for a BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically haven't argued above that the "Czech Adult Film Awards" meet the PORNBIO standard at all, because I quite frankly don't think that they currently do. The awards obviously do exist BTW. Guy1890 (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the reliable evidence that they exist? They're not listed at the Czech wikipedia [30], or for that matter the German [31], Spanish [32], French [33], Frisian [34], Dutch [35], Romanian [36], and Turkish [37]. This looks like claptrap a publicist made up and fed to a gullible reporter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're all familiar with the reality that not everything that exists in real life has an article on Wikipedia...that's not a controversial concept at all. Heck, this entire discussion here is about potentially deleting a subject, that is - in fact - real, from existence on the English Wikipedia due to notablity concerns, which happens routinely on Wikipedia. The fact remains that similiar (if not exactly the same) awards are already mentioned on this Wikipedia and online here & here among other places. Are the awards in question here themselves yet notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? Apparently not, but that does not mean that they are unimportant in the Czech Republic. Guy1890 (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This individual clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. There appears to have been some awards awarded in the Czech Republic, however, they are not significant or well known. Therefore, they confer no notability on their recipients. Finnegas (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep article seems to be written in neutral tone of language and have quality reference. Person concerned in the biography have achieved number of awards which makes the article notable Science.Warrior (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO as Finnegas states. Lacks well-known, significant award win. Even if you count the prague.tv article citation as reliable, Darling still comes up short on GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional literature featuring opera[edit]

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

Reasons include: totally unreferenced since January 2011, despite header; unencyclopaedic in nature - no proper explanation of criteria, objectives or purpose; a great number of works/authors do not have WP articles - hence liely to be non-notable; some works (e.g. Tolstoy's 'War and Peace') definitely don't qualify under any criteria; etc. etc. Smerus (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The list's deficiencies, as Smerus above and User:Voceditenore at Talk:List of fictional literature featuring opera point them out, are a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, VdT's comments are five years old - and nothing has been done. If one were to stick to the rules and tidy up the article, all the entries would be deleted. Is there anyway not something arbitrary about this list? - we might just as well have e.g. 'List of fictional literature featuring forests' or cakes, or.....Would matters not be better served by a category?--Smerus (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see little point in it and would not be unhappy to see it deleted. There are plenty of other areas where improvement is needed rather than spending time and energy on this - and which relate specifically to opera.......Viva-Verdi (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm the one who began the article based on crowdsourced comments. It shouldn't be hard to lay out explanation, criteria & other of Smerus's comments. -- kosboot (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not hard, then do it! You've had six years or so.....--Smerus (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious retort to this is, "There is no deadline" (don't spoil it by reading that essay). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the not so obvious retort is: "ok, how to start?" The idea I originally had was a list of fiction that contained a mention of opera. All of the items on the list have something to do with opera, some extensively, some superficially. Since this is factual ("This book mentions the fictional soprano X") what kind of citation is necessary? Being WP, I'm well aware that we have to arrive at a consensus at what features such a list should include. So I await to hear from people who are interested in improving it. -- kosboot (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the appropriate citations would be the book(s) concerned and some page references, according to WP:V and WP:CITE - I can't believe you're not aware of this, it's standard stuff. Thus, for Vedontakal Vrop by Malcolm Bradbury: source: 'Bradbury, Malcolm (1983). Rates of Exchange. London: Secker and Warburg. Paperback edition ISBN 9780099340003'. Note: 'Bradbury (1983), pp. 228-239'. And without such citations, there's no bar to deletion of content.....which is the obvious retort to Michael Bednarek. I'm eager to know btw what 'War and Peace' has to do with opera, btw....(edition and page reference please).... --Smerus (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Smerus, can I interpret your remarks as suggesting 4 columns: (1) author, (2) title, (3) bibliographic information (including ISBN), and (4) rationale for inclusion -- yes? -- kosboot (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me!--Smerus (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- I'm not a great fan of list articles and have no strong feelings about this one, but I can answer the War and Peace question. The appearance of opera in the novel is a deliberate and key element, according to the Grove Dictionary of Opera: http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/O004704?q=tolstoy&search=quick&pos=2&_start=1

Tolstoy, Lev [Leo] Nikolayevich
(b Yasnaya Polyana, 28 Aug/9 Sept 1828; d Astapovo railway station, 7/20 Nov 1910). Russian writer, distinguished hater of opera. He had some musical education: he could play the piano after a fashion and even composed waltzes. Sensitive not only to the pleasures of music but also to its ‘hypnotic’ influence and hence its power to uplift or corrupt, he maintained that there could be no aesthetic judgment without an ethical component. Good art was art that communicated simple ideas and emotions directly and intelligibly, uniting artist and audience in accord with Christian teachings. For Tolstoy opera, with its mongrel mixture of media, its needless complexity, its irreality and its reliance on flamboyant convention, epitomized the falsity of art at its most debased and stood as metaphor for falsity in social relations. The scene of Natasha Rostova’s moral downfall in his novel Voyna i mir (‘War and Peace’, 1869) is set fittingly against the background of an opera performance, in detailing which Tolstoy employed the (actually extremely artful) device of outwardly naive description – what critics of a later age would call ostraneniye (‘strange-making’) – to unmask and condemn the absurdity of such perverted ‘counterfeit art’.
...
It is grandly ironical to imagine the scoldings that have been administered over the years by directors and conductors immersed in the task of staging one of the operas that have been based on the works of Tolstoy. Pride of place among them, of course, goes to Prokofiev’s magnum opus, War and Peace, in which the irony is compounded by the fact that, while he did not show the imaginary opera Tolstoy described (evidently compounded out of stock elements remembered from Lucia, Robert le diable, Rigoletto, Trovatore and other operas popular in Tolstoy’s – not Natasha’s – time), Prokofiev devoted practically the whole first half of his opera (‘Peace’) to the episode that the night at the opera sets in motion: Natasha’s infatuation and planned elopement with the rake Anatole Kuragin.

Apologies for the length, but I couldn't possibly cut the "distinguished hater of opera" bit. Scarabocchio (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A thousand thanks :-) --Smerus (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely arbitrary list. Per WP:LISTN, lists are also subject to notability guidelines; the topic of the list – "fictional literature featuring opera" – needs to have been discussed by multiple reliable sources, and I can't find any evidence that this is the case. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with DoctorKubla, that this is a currently a completely arbitrary and unencyclopedic list of unreferenced trivia and a candidate for WP:BLOWITUP. However, it can be potentially fixed, provided that inclusion is strictly limited to instances where the use/mention/discussion of opera, and more importantly the significance of that use in a particular piece of literature has been verified and discussed in a scholarly independent source, as in the Tolstoy case. It is not enough to simply give bibliographic information for the novel, the page number(s) where the mention of opera allegedly occurs, and a "rationale" which consists solely of what the mention is. The list also needs a well-written and well-referenced introduction to the topic demonstrating the notability of the topic itself. There are plenty scholarly works that discuss the significance of various examples as well as the meta-topic, e.g. Overtones of Opera in American Literature from Whitman to Wharton, Opera and the Novel: The Case of Henry James, Opera in the Novel from Balzac to Proust, and Opera, the extravagant art plus several more listed at the end of this section at Talk:List of fictional literature featuring opera. It can be done, but it requires a fair amount of work and commitment from those wishing to keep it. Finally, this topic is unsuitable for a columned list. It needs to be much more discursive if it is to have any value to the reader. At the moment its encyclopedic value is zero. Voceditenore (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This ought to have no value to any member of WP:Opera! Why waste our time when there is so much more worthwhile editing to be done? (How many operas did Donizetti - for example - write? How many need real work done on them?). There's a lifetime of work facing us here .......!!) Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with you there, Viva-Verdi. I'm certainly not prepared to work on it for the very reasons you give. I'm wondering if the best thing to do would be to userfy it or to "projectify" it until it becomes something more than a raw data dump. Voceditenore (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list's value "to any member of WP:Opera" is not the determining factor! -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's certainly not the determining factor, or a factor at all, for that matter. However, it seems unlikely that anyone will turn this into anything approaching a valid encyclopedia article in the foreseeable future. In the 6+ years since it was created, no one (opera project member or not) has done anything with it apart from adding wikilinks and a couple of books like this. From a practical point of view, it may be better to userfy this rather than leaving it in article space. (I'm kind of sitting on the fence at the moment, simply because the overall topic has potential). Likewise, if the outcome here is to remove it from article space, I think it should be preserved either as a user page or a sub-page at WikiProject Opera rather than deleted outright. Voceditenore (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking of moving it to a sub-page of my userpages. Though it hit me: perhaps WP:Opera should have such sub-pages for articles "not ready for prime time" until someone has the energy & interest to get them ready. (I'm rather pre-occupied with my own projects at the moment.) -- kosboot (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My own view is that moving it to a sub-page at WikiProject Opera (as opposed to a user page) would increase the likelihood of it being eventually improved enough for article space, especially if we list it on the project's talk page in the Article creation and cleanup requests section. I wouldn't mind working on it sporadically in project space over the next year, but I simply do not have the time at the moment to do a blitz in article space that would make it an unambiguous "keep". I've asked an editor with a lot of experience in these types of situations to give a view on this. I'm not going to !vote one way or another for now. Voceditenore (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: having followed an interesting link from a user talk page on my watchlist and found myself here, I've fixed up the entry/ies for Dorothy Dunnett's Dolly and the Singing Bird (there were 2, unsurprisingly as the book has been published with 3 titles!) : links to Worldcat records (would have just added linked ISBNs but too early), and a quote from a back cover found on Amazon to show the opera connection (as my own copy isn't to hand just now). Presumably that's the sort of thing needed for them all? PamD 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is much too broad of a topic for an encyclopedia article to be written about it, which makes it a list for the sake of being a list. An article called Opera in literature that offers a prose analysis of of the subject would be encyclopedic. That article could analyse opera in Tolstoy as well as other notable authors. But even in that article it would be inappropriate to namedrop every piece of literature in Wikipedia that features an opera. That sort of "article writing" isn't appropriate in any article. It's best here to delete as there is little content worth saving, and because the article structure and presentation is fundamentally flawed. Them From Space 18:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course it would also be good to have an article talking about this deeply, but general information over a broad field is also valuable. A list of the occurrence of notable subjects in notable works is a will established feature of this encyclopedia. Besides serving a navigational function, it's wholly encyclopedic information. Lists like this lead to unexpected serendipitous discoveries, one of the traditional virtues of any encyclopedia: I would think that someone who came an item where they didn't see the connection would be glad of the opportunity to investigate, not seek to delete the article. I can think of no actual basis for deletion except that one does not think the occurrences of the major plot and setting elements in literature worth knowing about. Every item here can be references, but there should be sufficient information already in the relevant WP articles, or their coverage of the fictions is greatly defective (quite possible, since some here so much deprecate the inclusion of plot and setting information in articles.

I think even unimproved this an an obvious keep, because it is one of the principles of WP that we do not delete articles because they should be even better. (As a way of going forward, the most critically needed step is to indicate what opera is referred to in the work in question; the more difficult next steps are to write articles about the authors which are currently unrepresented in the encyclopedia and to write articles about each of the various operas referred to in the works when there are specific operas. This should keep the people most interested going for years, but that's the intrinsic nature of WP, and the way it is intended that articles here should be written: by successive improvements. Some people here do write complicated articles by themselves in one go at it, but most of the encyclopedia is written far otherwise.

The most general principal involved is that those who see articles that they think should be mush more extensive to do the work to improve them, not to delete the existing information There's about 95% of the encyclopedia for which I could very fair say: this really isn't good enough, we might do better to start over entirely. But we only do that when there is something not just incomplete, but so fundamentally wrong as to be unfixable,as for advertising and copyvio. If not obvious, I am a great fan of lists, which is offers just the sort of rudimentary but very broad knowledge I often like--but if my mental inclination were the opposite, and I couldn't tolerate anything being mentioned which is not discussed fully, I would not interfere with what other people found useful and informative. For 2 examples, I am totally uninterested in articles or parts of articles giving notable people from X, even for browsing, because it's too random, but I leave those be, or even improve them from time to time. I find it a great sin against literacy to present anything in a table that could be presented in paragraphs, but if an article is structured as a table, I leave it also. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs ref improve for which there is no time limit. The question for AfD is if the topic is notable, and I believe it is. We already have articles on individual fictional operas, so a list of fictional operas is in the same category of notability. -- GreenC 04:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Green Cardamom, this list isn't about fictional operas. It's a list of fiction works which feature the subject of opera (usually real ones) in the plot, e.g. a murder mystery that takes place in an opera house, a character who is an opera singer, or a major episode in which a character attends/reacts to an opera. Voceditenore (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. You'd think lists about real things would be even more notable than articles about fictional ones. -- GreenC 15:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DGG's arguments have convinced me :) Voceditenore (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2014 (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, we are past the Fool's Day--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States[edit]

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

Werearrwe (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason given for nomination. Greg Bard (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2014 (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 Bandy in the United States. (I'm assuming). Obviously the consensus is to not outright keep, but the target of the merge is being based on Talk:List_of_bandy_clubs_in_the_United_States#Merger_proposal. Obviously feel free to merge/target the redirect whereever consensus feels is best. slakr^\ talk / 09:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo Duluth[edit]

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

Objected to prod. In an extensive search I was unable to find any articles talking about the team specifically in any depth to meet WP:GNG. The sources on the page are merely primary sources and stat/roster lists. The team appears to be a local recreational team and due to the sports very low popularity in the US happens to be as high as you can go in the sport. DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is a deletion request based on guesses about the nature of the club. The club is notable. Bandy boy (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't guesses. There are no sources. You need to be able to proove notability with sources. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since you find no sources, you are guessing. "The team appears to be a local recreational team" is clearly guessing on your part. Bandy boy (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, notability requires sources. If you can't source it then its not notable. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. What you are talking about is verifiability, not notability. Bandy boy (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not, I have already pointed you to Wikipedia's requirements to be considers notable at WP:Notability. Wikipedia has a very specific meaning for notability in that it requires sources to proove that it is worth writing about. In otherwords to prove it is notable. If it doesn't have sources we consider it not worth writing about. AKA not notable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't make up definitions on its own. The common language dictates what notability means. I still wait for any reasons about the non-notability of this club. Bandy boy (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A website certainly can make up guidelines for what it allows on its own website. Are you serious? As mentioned all articles must meet the WP:GNG. This one doesn't. That is really the only argument needed. If you can proove it meets the GNG then it gets an article. Its really that simple. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm serious. Of course a website can make up guidelines for what it allows on itself, I do not say it can't. However, that does not mean the website may re-define words used in the common language. The page you are referring to is actually about verifiability, not about notability, regardless of the words chosen on the page, because it is about how you should be able to verify the information in a Wikipedia article in external sources. The notability referred to on that page, is not a notability estimated by anyone on Wikipedia but is estimated in those external sources. Therefore, I did not understand what you were talking about at first. Bandy boy (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minneapolis Bandolier. Unable to find non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that indicate a pass of WP:GNG. Reso lute 15:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Bandy League. Elassint ^Hi 18:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge See Talk:List_of_bandy_clubs_in_the_United_States#Merger_proposal for more details. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of bandy clubs in the United States, with the option to later merge to Bandy in the United States if the latter is created (see Talk:List of bandy clubs in the United States - Merger proposal for more info.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 26 April 2014 (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 Bandy in the United States. (or wherever). Ditto of my close @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamo Duluth slakr^\ talk / 09:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Blades[edit]

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

Objected to prod. In an extensive search I was unable to find any articles talking about the team specifically in any depth to meet WP:GNG. The sources on the page are merely primary sources and stat/roster lists. The team appears to be a local recreational team and due to the sports very low popularity in the US happens to be as high as you can go in the sport. DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is a deletion request based on guesses about the nature of the club. The club is notable. Bandy boy (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be able to proove it with sources that show its notability. Extensive searches have not shown any. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can prove verifiability. Notability is proven by arguments and comparissions with other subjects. You have done neither. Bandy boy (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No notability is proven by people writing about a topic. One of the arguments listed on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is the comparison to other subjects. Because the fact that X is notable does not mean that Y is notable. Notability for each subject is independent. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean every article about an independent state, a capital city or a head of state is not notable in itself? There is no conventional wisdom? The notability has to be found in other sources? So the United States of America is not notable in it self? You have to prove the existence of it to write about it? In that case, every fact in every article needs to be sourced, and I should add a source proving the notability of the United States to the article about Minnesota Blades? I also have to add a reference about Minnesota, another about bandy and perhaps one about ice too? I think you misinterprete what notability is all about. Notability is "[t]he quality or state of being notable or eminent", to quote Wiktionary. Notability is not about what you can prove, but what is worth writing about. Sources prove verifiability, not notability. Bandy boy (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No nothing is inherently notable. Everything has to be proven with sources. So yes, articles on the individual states would need sources talking about them in order to have an article. Now because they are states they are written about a lot so the sources are easy to find which proves they are notable. You don't have to put sources for Minnesota in the article about a bandy team, but you do have to put sources in an article about Minnesota. Again notability on Wikipedia has a very specific meaning outlined in WP:Notability. There is a whole section on the bottom of that page which explains why we require sources to prove notability. We proove that it is worth writing about by showing that it has sources. If it doesn't have sources Wikipedia considers it not worth writing about. -DJSasso (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, shall we delete the article about conventional wisdom then, since it doesn't exist? The article about axiom too? Bandy boy (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of Wikipedia those things are fine and obviously exist. But Wikipedia has guidelines and policies which determine what we can and can't put on the site and how it is put on the site. We don't take anything for granted because one persons conventional wisdom might be different from another persons as well as for the reasons that are explained in the section I linked about Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minneapolis Bandolier. Unable to find non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that indicate a pass of WP:GNG. Reso lute 15:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Bandy League. Elassint ^Hi 18:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge See Talk:List_of_bandy_clubs_in_the_United_States#Merger_proposal for more details. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of bandy clubs in the United States, with the option to later merge to Bandy in the United States if the latter is created (see Talk:List of bandy clubs in the United States - Merger proposal for more info.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 26 April 2014 (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 Bandy in the United States. (or wherever). Ditto of my close @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamo Duluth. This one seems to have slightly stronger delete voice, but should those arguing full-delete feel the redirect should also be deleted post-merge, just throw up an WP:RFD and it'll accomplish the same net result. slakr^\ talk / 09:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis Bandolier[edit]

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

Was an objected to prod. The sources on the page are all primary or are simple stat/roster pages. The objection was based on the team winning a national championship. If a team can win a national championship and still not have articles written about it then it is clearly not notable. I was unable to unearth any sources in a fairly extensive search. From what I can tell it is a local recreational bandy team. DJSasso (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose, this is preposterous. Bandy is a world sport and even if the US may not be a leading country, Minneapolis Bandolier is still national champions many times over. Baseball is a miniscule sport in my home country Sweden, but if a Swedish team was Swedish champion in baseball, I would still see it as having notability because baseball is huge in other countries – like in the US. Bandy boy (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't the notability of Bandy. It is clearly notable. The problem is this specific team. In order to be notable you need to be able to pass WP:GNG in that multiple articles written in depth about the team. Unless you can find some that meet the criteria of WP:RS this specific team is not notable. I think the problem here is that you don't understand what notability in Wikipedia terms means. To use your example the national champion in Ice Hockey in Egypt probably doesn't have enough written about it to have an article, even though the sport is huge in the northern half of the world. Heck there are national teams in some countries that don't even qualify for articles because they don't generate any news articles about them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you do accept that bandy is notable? Well then, why don't you consider Minneapolis Bandolier notable? I don't follow. Even if one could find just one small note about a club being national champion of ice hockey in Egypt, this would still show notability for that club. You can't just claim a lack of notability because there is a lack of information for you to find. A subject for an article may very well be fully notable even if the information is so sparse at the moment, that you can't write much more than a stub article about it until you eventually can find more information. Bandy boy (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is how Wikipedia works. The sport is notable and thus has an article. But that doesn't make every team that has ever played the sport notable. Lack of information is exactly the reason why its not notable. That is how notability works, if you can't find sources then the topic isn't notable. In order to be notable you must be able to meet WP:GNG. Please read WP:GNG where it says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" So your example of just a small note about being national champion isn't enough because that would be a passing mention. It has to be significant and in depth articles. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Bandolier is not just any team, it is the US champion in this sport. A national champion in a world sport IS notable. What you are talking about is verifiability. A subject may very well be notable in it self even if the information saying that it is so is perhaps not verifiable. If you want to delete this article because of a lack of verifiability, that is what you shall claim. The notability is unquestionable. Bandy boy (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again please read those pages. In order to be notable you need to have sources. Those sources have to be verifiable. On Wikipedia in order to be deemed notable you must have sources that are written in depth about the subject matter. You seem to have a complete misunderstanding of what notability is in Wikipedia terms. On Wikipedia notability is gauged by the amount of coverage the topic receives in sources. It doesn't matter the popularity of a sport, if no one writes about the team then the it isn't notable. In other words no one took note of the team. (ie they didn't write about them) -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i have read them and I know what notability is. It seems you don't. If I write about a president of the United States, he or she is clearly noteable, but if everything in the article is totally made up, including the name of the president, then it can't be verified. In that case, the article should get deleted, not because it is not noteable – because a president of the United States always is – but because the information is bogus and therefore unverifiable. So if you want to delete Minneapolis Bandolier because of a lack of noteability, you have to argue why the US bandy champions are not noteable. You can't just refer to the fact that you find the information to be unverifiable. Bandy boy (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then clearly you haven't read them because they specifically say "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources" and "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two Swedish sources and one Russian source isn't good enough as reliable secondary sources. I see. What would it take for a source to be reliable? Does it have to be American? Bandy boy (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't get coverage in the Minneapolis Star Tribune let alone any other publication. Fails to meet WP:GNG which requires published sources. Although Wikipedia tries to reduce geographical bias and present a worldwide picture, that doesn't mean that topics must be covered equally all around the whole world (we don't devote as much space to gridiron football in Laos as in the USA, or as much attention to Latvian sumo wrestlers as we do to Japanese, because these things do not have the infrastructure that attracts media interest). Maybe it would be possible to write a general article on Bandy in the USA if there are any sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a significant team in the sport, event though it is hardly known. Staglit (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Bandy, in a new section titled "United States".~~ NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that do be a very good idea. If we should clutter the main article with information of the hundreds of bandy clubs there are in every country where bandy is played, the article would be too long. There should be a section about the United States in the article, but if this absurd deletion request is made real, the information about bandy clubs in the US should at least be in an article called "List of bandy clubs in the United States" or something like that. Bandy boy (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am sorry, Bandy boy. You are clearly passionate about this, but I can find no evidence of coverage of this team that would meet WP:GNG. The only sources in the article are primary, and I do not see non-trivial coverage (in fact, there's really no coverage of any kind) in Google news, news archive, Highbeam, etc. Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, not on personal preference. Reso lute 14:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what you are talking about is verifiability. When a subject is covered by sources, it can be verified. That has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Bandy boy (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am talking about notability. We judge notability by the preponderance of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Certainly we can verify this team exists due to the primary sources. But the lack of coverage in secondary sources argues against notability of this team. Reso lute 15:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two Swedish sources and one Russian source are obviously not deemed as secondary sources by you. Is that because they have bandy as their common theme? Then I suppose all sources about football are primary sources if they are from football themed websites. Oh my. Bandy boy (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are secondary sources, but they do not represent significant coverage. Two of the three aren't even about the Minneapolis Bandolier, and the third is a simple directory listing. These are all trivial mentions. Reso lute 20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of bandy clubs in the United States. (I've stricken my previous !vote above). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of bandy clubs in the United States as no indication of notability. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Bandy League, if this is the premier league of American Bandy then that's the page this article should be merged to, it would be more encyclopedic. Elassint ^Hi 15:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge See Talk:List_of_bandy_clubs_in_the_United_States#Merger_proposal for more details. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bat (Canada's Wonderland)[edit]

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

This roller coaster is a mass-produced roller coaster. There are several roller coasters that have the exact same layout/characteristics of this roller coaster. A search on Google and Yahoo returned no reliable sources regarding the roller coaster that could be included to support the notability of the topic. Dom497 (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Themeparkgc, McDoobAU93, Astros4477, and JlACEer: Just thought you guys might want to pitch in your thoughts.--Dom497 (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, this would be like having an article on each individual Ford Taurus that's ever been made. Unless something appears showing how The Bat itself is notable, this should just be included in a List of Vekoma Boomerang roller coasters somewhere. --McDoob AU93 18:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable topic per above comments. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strong believer in mass-produced roller coasters not having their own article.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, didn't find significant RS coverage to meet WP:GNG. Found books with one-sentence descriptions in reliable sources, a personal account, and short info on tech specs, and a newspaper article from The Star on the coaster stalling with people suspended upside down, but overall just not enough. I'm fine with an example of a "mass" produced item having its own article, but it still needs RS coverage. Agyle (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity paradox[edit]

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

Article appears to be self-promotion rather than full development of multiple perspectives and authors (WP:SPAM) DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Jacob Jenkins. The article creator removed the AfD notices from both articles and has been warned not to do that again. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This relies on only one (primary) source that, according to Google scholar, has only one citation, by its own author. In order for a topic to have the neutral coverage we need to describe it encyclopedically, we need sources that are independent of the subject and its creator, and they just don't exist. By the way, there are many hits for the phrase "diversity paradox" in Google scholar, but they all appear to refer to unrelated work. It is possible that one or more of those hits could be a more notable subject for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOOSOON. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Boil down to a paragraph or to a section under Affirmative action#Criticism. Do not leave in such phrases as the current opening (!) of the article: "The diversity paradox is a theoretical concept in the field of organizational communication – a subfield within the larger discipline of communication studies." gidonb (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not about affirmative action. This construct is about narrative and identity. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Jacob Jenkins[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines (WP:ACADEMIC) DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diversity paradox. The article creator removed the AfD notices from both articles and has been warned not to do that again. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Assistant professors (especially at teaching universities rather than research universities) have rarely made enough impact yet to pass WP:PROF#C1 and this one seems to be no exception. The awards are all too minor to be of interest. No other sign of notability evident. Article creator has only worked on very closely related articles, possibly indicating a conflict of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No sign of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet per WP:ACADEMIC and WP:PROF. gidonb (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2014 (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 Symphony (software). (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony Developer Edition[edit]

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

Highly promotional in tone, and not notable on its own. If notable, it belongs in Symphony (software). However, very few of the cited references are third-party and unaffiliated, which makes me doubt its notability. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 01:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively Merge to Symphony (software). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Symphony (software) - the independent refs either do not specifically mention the 'Developer Edition' or mention it incidentally, so notability is not sufficient for a separate article.Dialectric (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2014 (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 (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trimark Pictures[edit]

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

Article about a ~~video-game~~ company lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources neither does meet WP:NCORP nor WP:GNG standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean video/gaming or did you mean it as videogames as in just the videogame arm? The way it's phrased in the argument here is a little confusing, as I mostly associate them with movies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! I'm not sure where did I read a company that made video-games, it doesn't appear now. I just read it again, and find it was a production house, investing to make and distribute movies. It probably should be notable. However, I remember googling the subject (tab still open) up to first 5 pages, finding nothing substantial. Someone at least, for the AfD sake would take the task to find sources and improve the present article. I'm open to withdraw this nomination if multiple reliable sources with substantial coverage of the subject shown. For now, I need a nap for myself. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding a bit, although you'll generally have to search for just "Trimark" since that's how they were referred to because of the multiple, multiple titles used for them. I am finding reference of them in places such as this Rutgers University Press book, but it's a lot to wade through. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should also look for Vidmark, another name the company identified as. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've found enough sources to help the subject to reach WP:NCORP standard. "Vidmark" as a keyword worked! ([38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]). Withdrawing nomination and closing afd as speedy close. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:08, 21 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Turner[edit]

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

Unref'd BLP of a non-notable individual that has existed for eight years. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article's more like an advert than an encyclopedic article, and as per nom been unsourced for years. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and there is not even a reference.Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 18:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the citations (found by searching Google scholar for "author:jl-turner china") nor the awards rise to the level of WP:PROF. If they did, the sourcing issue could be improved but without a basis for notability I don't see the point in even trying. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time to clear all unreferenced articles from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, but not an endorsement of striking all unreferenced articles. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-as said above unnoatable, and really, how did this stay like this for 8 years? Wow. Wgolf (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2014 (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. Issues of naming are more for requested moves. slakr^\ talk / 10:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Bezler[edit]

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

These articles are about people of doubtful significance. Which is even more important, they are based on the SBU news releases only. None of the not numerous facts provided has been confirmed by independent sources. No one can even be sure these people are GRU officers VanHelsing.16 (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - not notable, not even confirmed. Strelkov has a search warrant out for his arrest, does that qualify for notable? --Львівське (говорити) 07:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Strelkov has a search warrant out for his arrest, does that qualify for notable? - I believe Bezler does too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is "supect" of "participating" in the Crimea crisis. Even if he did (which seems less than verifable), mere participation does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Wall Street Journal published this article about Mr. Strelkov but the reporting is almost entirely from SBU releases and it is clear the authors were unable to independently verify the story. Jogurney (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't support the Deletion - Igor Brezler is a remarcable figure in the russian Georgia War, and now, we must wait to see if he is really implicated on the tortures, kidnapings, assasinations, etc., occurred on the recent events in Ukraine. And please don't turn wikipedia into another battlefront of the events on the ukranian-russian conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexxxos (talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is an epitome of maladroit (or even concocted) exposition. On the one side it is based in its entirety on a non-neutral, partial source (meets WP:HOAX), but even if we surmise the veracity of affiliated sources, then (as one analyser concluded) the members of Russian diversion groups on Ukrainian soil must certes outnumber the entire GRU staff. In the second case it clearly lacks sufficient notability. Bogorm (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexxxos I have read the article. If there were sincere interest in its præservation, at least overt grammatical errors (such as in the following excerpts: He is suspected in participating of...; he participated in number of violent events) glaring even to non-native speakers of English like me would have been rectified during the week which elapsed since its generation. Just in the first excerpt I caught sight of two mistakes whose persistence seems indicatory of the disinclination to put the article aright, nay to præserve it. Bogorm (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:N considering also that none of this is confirmed information it is also a WP:BLP violation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX – the Horlivka incident has been confirmed as a hoax. The fact that the story comes from "reliable" pro-Kyiv sources does not make it true. Even the US State Department produces hoaxes and has the New York Times publish them on the front page. One must be extremely careful about any claims about Ukraine, especially in articles under WP:BLP. ~~Do not salt, allow recreation based on reliable sources.~~ -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed !vote to keep or merge. This source from Russian RT seems to verify that Igor Bezler is "one of the self-defense force leaders whose group is controlling the local police department in Gorlovka" – or at least the SBU believe so. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think his material should be merged into the appropriate articles (Siege_of_Sloviansk#Notable_figures ?) until we can establish proper notability. Users are calling for a 'hoax' when this has all been verified thoroughly, so not sure why they are pushing this "hoax" angle. Bezler himself says hes former Russian military, and they since confirmed his service record, so not sure what the "hoax" is EDIT: Changed to keep from original merge proposal, like VM says he qualifies for Notability now--Львівське (говорити) 03:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strelkov def appears to satisfy criteria for notability: [45].Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Practically the faces of the uprising (Bezler in the early days, thanks to that video, and now Strelkov with the prisoners). We can present the Russian position, but these two are playing a key role in these events.--Martin Berka (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded both. Bezler could go either way, but "Strelkov" is now on the EU sanction list.--Martin Berka (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is asserted, per Lvivske and Marek above. § DDima 20:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strelkov. Has recently been explicitly named in EU sanctions;^[46] other-language Wikipedias have significant articles on him. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strelkov, but rename per NPOV. We should not repeat unsubstantiated allegations in the title.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (separatist)? (insurgent)? (pro-Russian leader/militant/commander)?--Martin Berka (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the EU's sanctions list and identified by name is kinda official --Львівське (говорити) 01:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Strelkov article has now doubled. He is officially in charge of all fighters in the region. The EU is official, and vouches for his notability, but it is not neutral to say (GRU) when he and pro-Russian media deny everything.--Martin Berka^T|C 11:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the commander of a militia that has control of a substantial area of Ukraine. For me, that makes him notable. Tomh903 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Figure whose identification and role in the events have attracted enough media interest. I can just bring here couple of Russian-language publications: scandal w gravestones, role in local politics in 2012, interview w autograph to NG. Ignatus (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strelkov, but rename to something like Igor Strelkov (soldier) or Igor Strelkov (militant). We could also use his real name as the title if and when that is considered reliable. He is clearly notable, and there are non-Ukranian sources. For example, this Wall Street Journal article relies largely on an interview with a Russian source, Komsomolskaya Pravda. The sanctions also contribute to notability. Superm401 - Talk 08:08, 4 May 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lyubomir Simeonov[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights Peter Rehse (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BIO passes. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 12:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're a new editor, I should point out to you that routine sports reporting is not considered significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter since he ails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Non-notable kickboxer since he fails WP:KICK. Not notable as an actor since he fails WP:NACTOR. Lacks the significant coverage to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet the GNG or the notability criteria for kickboxers, MMA fighters, or actors. Papaursa (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all of the criteria mentioned by other editors and passes no criteria.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Alfredo Barrera[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer, does not meet criteria from WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boxer that fails WP:NBOX and the article has no significant coverage from reliable sources.Mdtemp (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBOX and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Club of young patriots[edit]

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

The article is about the youth arm of an irredentist organization in Albania. Minimal coverage in Albanian news and off course not the slightest info about it English-speaking press/web. For certainty it doesn't meet notability criteria for organizations per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies): Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Alexikoua (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Alexikoua seems to make an ethnic POV here. As it is clear this organization is the youth organization of the Fourth Largest Political Party in Albania, PDIU, and not of any irredentist organization as he implies. There are more than 55 thousand hits] on google, so it is not "minimal coverage" as he implies. As such, I do not see how, it does not meet the ntability criteria.Balkanian`s word (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that the hits of the above link in google are in fact only [23] and not 55,000 (?). Off course all 23 hits are from some ultranationalistic blogs (not a single url in English). The PDIU is an irrendetist organization and his youth arm one of many irrendetist groups of minimal importance as the very view hits show in googleAlexikoua (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It happens too many times, that editors just do not read before proposing to delete. Club of Young Patriots is the youth organization of Party for Justice, Integration and Unity, the fourth largest political party in Albania, having 5 out of 140 MPs in the Parliament. By the way, it is not irredentist as its program shows; it aims no border changes. As for English, you may search in English, in order to have English results, like this for example from one of the leading TV in Albania.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an arguments to keep or not. Notability is minimal with only "23" google hits (most of them self published sites that just mention its name in Albanian only). For certain it doesn't pass notability standarts.Alexikoua (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources yet. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I have moved the article to Club of Young Patriots per MOS:CAP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dimo Nadeem[edit]

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

fails sports notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Harsh (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No professional appearances and being the first Palestinian to play football in Australia is certainly not notable. Seasider91 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.WP:NFOOTBALL WP:BIO fail. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 12:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No significant coverage found. Player didn't seem to work in professional leagues, so fails under WP:NFOOTBALL. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 21:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NSPORTS - hasn't played in a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Wildy Louis[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 the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Haiti and Dominican Republic leagues are not fully professional. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG based on Google search. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable footballer Seasider91 (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2014 (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) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. No independent refs. No sign of coming close to meeting WP:GNG. Created by editor with a similar name to the editor of the journal. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

with respect I do not think that you are in a position to judge the notability of this journal. It is indexed in leading indices, and also appears in the ACM digital library. It has published most of the leading researchers in the field, including Mike Sharples, John Traxler and Ages Kukulska Hulme.Dparsonsnz (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the text says, it is the official journal of the International Association for Mobile Learning, a lively academic community http://www.iamlearn.org/. I've included the links now. I do not see any reason for deleting it. Best, Christoph Pimmer (having reviewed many of the journals contribution). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.86.223.2 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — 147.86.223.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Indexed in Scopus and ACM digital library, so meets notability criteria of WP:NJournals. COI is a concern, but the article in present form is not particularly promotional. A ref should be added confirming the indexing; I added one a while ago, but it was non-independent and rejected. A notable journal and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NJournals is a WP:ESSAY not a WP:policy. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark viking, meets WP:NJournals. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is fine and should be kept as it adds value. There is no reason to delete it just because the page was created by the editor of the journal. This is providing valuable information even if the editor did initially provide it. The page is well written and so no edits have really been needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.85.84 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be noted that neither of the above IPs provide any valid policy-based arguments. Obviously a minor journal for now. However, being included in Scopus is a pass of WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Journal has merit. It is indexed both in Scopus and ACM Digital Library. That it serves a small community, should in no way prevent it from being listed in Wikipedia. Disclaimer: I serve on the Editorial Board of the Journal, have reviewed many articles in that capacity and can attest to the bona-fide way in which the journal operates and is run. As for the Editor-in-Chief being the creator of the page, while there is a clear bias, this is a positive action and clearly within his remit. I cannot see how this detracts in any way from the quality of the content in Wikipedia. -Joaquim Jorge (http://web.ist.utl.pt/jorgej)(talk • contribs) 10:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Joaquim.a.jorge (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — Joaquim.a.jorge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
For anybody who is uncertain about the merits of IJMBL, I would suggest the following exercise:

Go to Google Scholar and search for all articles published in International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, then skim through the first few pages of output from that search - you can immediately get the sense of a coherent and developing research agenda, of many distinguished authors, and of a number of papers that have been very widely cited. Note: I have reviewed papers for this journal, albeit not frequently. JN — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianNewman (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC) — JulianNewman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of those arguments are policy-based, though. --Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - yes it is a relatively new journal but it is increasing in its significance and the growing number of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.40.32 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC) — 87.112.40.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Those against deletion have not shown significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources to meet the general notability guideline. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwick Pelletier[edit]

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

promotional article for a very minor film writer , actor, and producer . No significant films in any of these functions, except one performance in someone else's music video.

The article manages to include three photos of him, and all his very minor credits. Perhaps it's a lead up to his unpublished book? DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article. No credible assertion of notability, nor can I find any significant mentions.TheLongTone (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TheLongTone. Also, the images are most likely a fan upload, they are missing permissions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd also like to add that the original creator of this article is now blocked. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual has extensive credits with major networks according to referenced Wiki article (IMDb). There is no direct promotion on this page; only outlining the individual's work in and out of his industry, which is appropriate and inline with this medium. Companies referenced in this article all have relevant industry credits and images seem to link back to Wiki Media with associated permissions, and are relevant to article. [[User:Spycraft7 • TALK 17:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per Lady Lotus' comment. The creator of the article was blocked, because his/her username did not follow Wikipedia contributor guidelines and represented an organization. I don't sense any dubious play here. Article is informative and relevant to this database. [[User:Spycraft7 • TALK 17:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spycraft7 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Keep This is not a vanity article. Individual has credits on just about every major network, and is the owner and founder of successful industry production and development companies. I am a contributor to this article and have done extensive due diligence and open source research on this individual to find and cross-reference much of what is found in this article. Many people who saw this person on MTV's Road Rules are not aware of his background and work, which is why the article (I believe) was created. He's appeared on national TV; he's been in a number of published and produced TV, commercial and print campaigns, with many assertions of notability. He was also a well-known voiceover artist on the Award-Winning animated series, Where on Earth is Carmen Sandiego, and also has a YA Fiction novel due this year. I believe his credits are worthy of a wikipedia page. I say keep. Cwick37 (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just another quick comment. Many of Chadwick's MTV Road Rules cast members who have articles here, with significantly fewer professional credits and no issues.TALK 20:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDb cannot be used as a reliable source, and having notability is having "significant coverage" of a person, which he does not have. Also, it's written like a fansite. "Notable quotes", really? And all these links (now removed) to direct a user to imdb, not even used a reference. No. It's written poorly when he shouldn't have a page to begin with. And why do users Cwick37 and Spycraft7 have the same exact signature effect? Not socking I hope. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd also like to add that the 3 pictures (now removed) that were on this page are all uploaded User:Cwick37 as "own work" with missing permission. Likely a fan, so I'd be cautious of the motive to keep the article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the page is deleted, it's deleted, although as one of its contributors, I will say that his credentials (although not a celebrity), significantly outweigh many of his Reality TV peers, who have their own articles here with no issues, to include: Tori Fiorenza, Evan Starkman, Julie Stoffer, Tonya Cooley, Brianna Taylor, Diem Brown, Christina Pazsitzky, among many others. Chadwick is an industry professional with verifiable credentials, although I'm sure if he ever got wind of all this hubbub, he'd rather it just come down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwick37 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just listing other pages that "own articles here with no issues" is just WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and isn't a valid argument in AfD discussions. We're talking about him, not them. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian Tamil films[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. No verifiable sources are available for anything in this article. EelamStyleZ // TALK 02:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability, no sources, irrelevant.Staglit (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In an attempt to establish the keepability or lack thereof of this list, I made the fatal mistake of actually clicking on some of the film links. Nearly every bluelink was to an incorrect topic; most were to films made in India several years after the year claimed here, while a few were to disambiguation pages that didn't list appropriate films, one was to an actress and one was to Canadians (which I'm sure I don't need to point out isn't an article about a film made in any country.) 1999 (film) and Sivappu Malai actually linked to the correct places, although the latter one doesn't describe any actual Canadian involvement in the film beyond the fact that one of its stars happens to have previously lived here (which isn't enough to make a film "Tamil Canadian" in and of itself.) A few films also inappropriately linked offsite to dead webpages, or in one case to a YouTube clip. The one cited "reference" is a dead link, as are both of the "external links" (which were just spamlinks for production companies even before they died.) So what we have here is, indeed, an unsourced and almost completely unverifiable list as things currently stand; even most of the purported directors don't have articles to link to. No prejudice against recreation if a good version that actually cites real reliable sources to verify the existence of the claimed films can be created, but this version, as currently written, is a big fat unsalvageable piece of junk, for which I couldn't even begin to sort out what's a legitimate entry that could qualify for an article and what's bull dung. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous DON - The Game[edit]

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

Non-notable game. A few guys write a video game as a school project, and then create ads and profiles in a few places to promote said game, and attempt to use their own promotional material as the reference for their Wikipedia article. 'Nuf said. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. If by some small chance this game gets popular, then we can remake it, but I doubt this is worth userfying for that off chance. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as not notable, no valid sources, seems to be designed by a group of siblings. Elassint ^Hi 15:36, 24 April 2014 (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.