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) 01:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil at the 2014 Winter Paralympics[edit]

Brazil at the 2014 Winter Paralympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Makro (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and close No rationale has been given for deletion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. No rationale given for deletion, and Brazil's participation in the Games has been confirmed. We've always had an article for each participating country at the Games. Aridd (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: no rationale given, notable topic which is in convention. Thanks, Matty.007 15:40, 22 February 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. postdlf (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malaysian architects[edit]

List of Malaysian architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A list of mainly red links. Just one of the architects has his own article. The Banner talk 23:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It has substantial content: list of architects and many of their works. Redlinks are fine; redlinks help wikipedia grow. --doncram 04:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Some of the architects appear notable: Hubback is in the ODNB[1]; Berthel Michael Iversen and AC Norman get some hits in books and Malaysian press; PH Keyes was a fellow of RIBA; and creating a notable building may meet WP:CREATIVE. I'm sure research in non-English language sources will provide further information. My only concern is that membership criteria need specifying: many of these architects have worked in Malaysia but are not Malaysian. --Colapeninsula (talk)

I started a page on Arthur Benison Hubback --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a relatively acceptable list, since there are people in the list that are notable (we do have a List of American architects right? That's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I know, but I meant they operate under the same principle). Still, more of the redlinks could have articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is one of many lists in Category:Lists of architects by nationality, a category that was not included in the article when nominated for AFD, but added by me later. I think this AFD is headed for "Keep" and that it could be closed that way already. The only issues mentioned are suitable for discussion at its Talk page, i.e. what should the inclusion criteria be, and how to treat English-born architects who worked in Malaysia, etc. --doncram 14:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, 12 red links and just two blue links. The lack of blue links in the list was my main concern, as it looked like window dressing for the unsourced/sub-standard article about Ken Yeang in the first place... The Banner talk 15:13, 19 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo Vieira[edit]

Waldo Vieira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF and WP:BIO generally. Reliable independent sources do not seem to be forthcoming. jps (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Failure of WP:PROF also some concerns about WP:FRINGE through attempt to use Vieira to slip in "projectology" as a "nascent science". Simonm223 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't find a single reliable reference for this guy. Goblin Face (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable objective sources available with which to write an encyclopedic article. (And no, Brazilian tabloid newspapers are not objective or reliable.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I can't find any Brazilian tabloid listed on the article. Can you point that out for me please? -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was in the article. Searches turn up Brazilian pop media's sensationalistic tabloid treatments of paranormal subjects that mention Vieira [2]. These shouldn't be used as reliable or objective sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:FRINGE#Notability. No reliable sources providing any sort of analysis, Second Quantization (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Fringe, or not, it is stated on this link of the Library of Congress he is the founder of Projectiology. The sources provided is the Journal of Parapsychology (2004). Since when a peer-reviewed journal isn't a reliable source? -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An entry in the library of congress is not sufficient to meet WP:PROF notability guidelines. Nor is a single reference in a single journal. That being said, the link to the Journal of Parapsychology that is included in the article is a broken link and doesn't point to any extant article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "journal of parapsychology" is not a reliable source but a well known parapsychology piece. Peer review isn't reliable when the peers are pseudo-scientists. Regards, Second Quantization (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is that? How can a journal on pseudo-science be reviewed by any other authority outside the subject of research? On peer-review the refrerre must have similar competence as the author. You are saying a subject can't have notability because it is pseudo-science? Should we also delete all articles on philosophy, religion and astrology? -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Maintain. You guys msut be kidding. This author has published over 50 books, some of them translated to 5 diferent languages. Just by following the links listed on authority control you'll find some of the publications in major libraries around the world.
  He's also gotten an entry on Who's Who in the 21st Century (2002. p. 784). Sorry, but Google-search is not always the best source for serious subjects. -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of books or number of translations mean nothing towards notability. Second Quantization (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except when it does. I often see long time AfD participants citing Worldcat library holdings and publication counts as a reason to delete an article. I agree though best-seller status and number of books has nothing to do with it, but unfortunately it tends to be an argument used when convenient. The number of books is a sign that there are probably book reviews, which is how notability is determined. -- GreenC 20:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those people who were writing monster erotica churned out a lot of books too but that's not sufficient grounds for notability in and of itself. The question is more where other people have written about him. Which brings me to the who's who entry... it's a pay-for-space arrangement. International Biographical Centre which makes it not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It took a lot of digging to find the review because the Journal of Parapsychology appears to be defunct - having not published since 2009 and having no web presence at all since 2012 a Fall 2013 edition. I did find it here: [[3]] and honestly, even from the in-universe perspective the fact is that the reviewer says: it is not the perception of this reader that this work is the quintessential guide to lucid projection. If what we have is a weakly-warm review in a single defunct parapsychology journal and a pay-for-space listing in a who's who book that is nowhere near the level of notability required for WP:PROF Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Google-Scholar generates 2.390 hits. According to it his 3 major works has been cited over 20 times each. Most of them in Brazil (Spiritism/Projectiology), but still... You guys still doubt on notoriety? -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20 times is rather a low count by any normal researchers count. I know many non-notable researchers that have been cited at least 100 times for each of their top three major publication. It indicates nothing. Second Quantization (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Coment. This source is also good for the article: ROCHA, Cristina; VÁSQUEZ, Manuel A. (editors). The Disapora Of Brazilian Religions, pp. 339-362 (Chapter "The Niche Globalization of Projectiology: Cosmology and Internationalization of a Brazilian Parascience", by Anthony D’Andrea). Koninklijke Brill NV, 2013. ISBN 978 90 04 23694 3. --Tenepes (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on the GS citation figures cited by AlchemistOfJoy. Absolutely insufficient to come even close to WP:PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somethin' isn't right here. This subject is not about notability (academics), this is about Notability (author). The guy is only relevant as author, not as physician or professor. -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then read WP:AUTHOR and stop talking about the cite counts which are very low by all standards. Second Quantization (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Possible failure to meet WP:PROF criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Pass WP:BASIC and Wikipedia:Notability criteria: not trivial multiple independent sources, and more possible forthcoming sources in portuguese.--Angelito7 (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found one book review in a fringe journal, but I don't think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. And per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, we need mainstream sources about him, not just fringe ones, to generate appropriately neutral coverage of the fact that his beliefs are fringe ones, and I don't see any of those. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There you go:

1. AUTHOR criteria 2: ″J. of Parapsychology″ (the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique)
2. AUTHOR criteria 3: ″Xavier's Partnership w/ Vieira″ (the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant collective body of work...)

AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 19:54, 23 February 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 / 08:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hag (Persian)[edit]

Hag (Persian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hard to tell what this article is about because the author doesn't seem to be a native English speaker, but I believe this should be deleted because wikipedia is not a dictionary. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom per WP:NAD. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is better that this page deleted because the term occurs in all Iranian languages​​, perhaps a change in the name of this article: Hag (Iranian languages) Tabnak (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so probably it shouldn't be included at all. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contrib Tanks, Yes, indeed, You are absolutely right. I also think so, maybe they can be added to Hag (disambiguation)? This is also difficult because of the homophony and homography in the numerous Iranian and Persian languages. I recommend Hag (Persian) incorporated into a new Page safe namly Hâg (disambiguation). Hâg or Hâj are an appropriate pronunciation for this language area. These words are from a very large family of languages (Indo-European). Of course, the context should be noted. This disambiguation are there to help the mountains of the Iranian plateau are well understood. I am also looking for solutions.I'm sorry for all this Tabnak (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because the sources do not support the assertions written in this article and should be deleted per no original research and WP:VERIFY. Also, as stated above Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Please try Wiktionary.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:14, 24 February 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mutherfucker of the Year[edit]

Mutherfucker of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONG. Prod removed without comment. SummerPhD (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Billboard says it charted, but I don't see any reliable sources that discuss it. If nobody comes up with anything, it should probably be deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The WP:NSONG low-bar specifies that merely charting is not automatically indicative of notability. The fact that this article is utterly unsourced is not accidental, methinks. Carrite (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 18 February 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. G3 - obvious hoax. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boary Mount[edit]

Boary Mount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Topic without any references, Google and Google Scholar turned up zero results. Does not appear notable and frankly I am not sure if this is even a real place or term. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• speedily delete as patent hoax. One of the author's only other two edits was linking to this article as part of this vandalism. I would also add the that the article is complete bollocks. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to speedily delete it as no context but was shot down...Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 19 February 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 redirect to Newsboys discography. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It Is You[edit]

It Is You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable EP. Fails WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2014

• Delete Agreed. Glman99 (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

• Delete - I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this promotional/limited release; I suppose I would not oppose a redirect to Newsboys discography#Extended plays if desired (they're cheap and all) but this appears to fall short of meeting WP:MUSIC.  Gong show 04:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Newsboys discography. I can't find any decent sources, and it didn't chart. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Newsboys discography. EP is only a minor release on its own, but it is mentioned in the discography article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:11, 21 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Tesoro[edit]

Trent Tesoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(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. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Fails GNG without non-trivial reliable source coverage. Passing mentions for a small claims court suit that looks like a publicity stunt are not substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 22 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dang Van Lam[edit]

Dang Van Lam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(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 without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: user:HitroMilanese did contest the PROD with a reason: that the Lao Premier League was indeed fully professional. L.tak (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-I contested PROD. I gave reason in my Edit Summary. Hitro talk 21:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:FOOTBALL. The Lao Premier League is not fully pro. Even if it was, he still would've failed because he hasn't made a league appearance. More importantly, he fails WP:GNG because he has not received any significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then our article on the league is also incorrect (but then: it is not cited at all). User:Mikemor92, Do you have a ref for the this assertion so i) the Lao Premier League article can be corrected and ii) I have some information whether I should suggest "keep" or "delete"? L.tak (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find third party sources to suggest that the Leo PL is fully pro, then start a discussion on the talk page of WP:FPL which has the list of fully pro leagues (supported by references) and there's also a list of leagues that aren't fully pro. – Michael (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info; I'll update the article accordingly. As you can see from my previous comment, my question was a question, not an assertion; I have no particular interest in the outcome of this AfD, just want to get the data on the table..… L.tak (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence the Lao Premier League is a WP:FPL, meaning it currently fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage. GiantSnowman 12:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played senior international football, nor in an FPL. No indication of any wider achievements garnering significant coverage. The interview to a Russian media outlet is insufficient for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per GiantSnowman's arguements. Finnegas (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet the general notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. This guy does not seem notable at all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:25, 21 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Schwarzenpecker[edit]

Arnold Schwarzenpecker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards or nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO and GNG as nominator states. Search for reliable source coverage yielded only a self-published book and the usual press announcements. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the notability requirements of actors of this type.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 20 February 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 Withdrawn. Closing as a withdrawn AfD (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 20:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Senthilnathan[edit]

Senthilnathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced BLP. The subject of the article returns only this Wikipedia page in a Google search. May even qualify for CSD. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator - there was an existing BLP PROD that someone had removed inappropriately. Probably better to the the PROD run its course. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:18, 16 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Gables[edit]

Heather Gables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(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. Little reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award nominations. Fails GNG even if you count Adult Video News articles as reliable source coverage. (They read too much like an active porn star talking in-character to a men's magazine for my taste.) No other RS coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the notability requirements for porn actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 20 February 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 nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Óscar Céren[edit]

Óscar Céren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(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 based on a unsupported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Menjívar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A quick check of the article shows that it's linked from El Salvador national football team#Current squad where you can see that he played this year for El Salvador. This is confirmed at [4] where it indicates he came in as a late game substitute. Nfitz (talk) 01:20, 17 February 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. postdlf (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Värmlandic centenarians[edit]

List of Värmlandic centenarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I made a prod for this article, but appearently I have to know every single Wikipedia guideline and refer to them rather than just giving a simple but honest motivation. First of all, it's narrow in the aspect that Värmland is a relatively small area in a relatively small country. Thus, its encyclopedic value is pretty low. Also, it hasn't been updated in a long time. Comments? OscarLake (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Ok, you could try these, provided you don't get snowed by ancestors with massive objections; WP:NOTMEMORIAL & WP:NOTDIR. So to discuss, the article says most of them have died, but doesn't state any particular notability. Second, what's the notable need for a list of this nature, because "just to have one" doesn't cut it. That's my (2) cent(s)... ;) Nikto wha? 20:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A list of non-notable people. Secret ^account 01:05, 20 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Svenn Crone[edit]

Svenn Crone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he might play in the near future. This claim violates WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails notability guidelines. Plus Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. – Michael (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sir Sputnik has once again misrepresented the ground that the PROD was removed. The grounds were No point deleting at this point. Use WP:COMMONSENSE and see what happens when season resumes. Also WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply as the test of if the event is notable and almost certain to take place is met. If he does start, it's notable. And this is almost certain to take place. Not 100% certain, but almost certain. Nfitz (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, the first point of WP:CRYSTAL refers to articles about future events, not about people, and is therefore not relevant. In fact, other than the first sentence, none really applies here. What is relevant is the basic premise that undocumented speculation is to be avoided. But if we must attempt to apply policy to things they weren't meant to describe, please note the same first point addresses this: Speculation about it (the event) must be well documented. There is no documented speculation about Mr. Crone's debut, and all likelihood there won't be. Until he actually plays, the only relevant notability guideline is WP:GNG, which he fails. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence has been provided that the player is "almost certain" to play professionally. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played senior international football, nor in an FPL. No indication of any wider achievements garnering significant coverage. WP:CRYSTAL definitely applies here. Fenix down (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 19 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke card[edit]

Spoke card (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are no independent, reliable sources that tell us anything about bicycle spoke cards. We can verify that a spoke card is a card you stick in your spokes, but that is a dictionary definition. They have been used for advertising and messages, but no quality sources treat that fact as notable. Without sources, there's no content, and without content there's no article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion -- I just added sources. Obviously spokecards are an expression of a subculture within the cycling community, but they are widespread and have been put to a wide range of purposes, as evidenced in the article, which much more than a dictionary definition. This article is far longer than many established stubs. -Ahalenia (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Ahalenia[reply]

• Keep: @Ahalenia: seems to have done a really good job, I'm not seeing any issues. Might be on the edge of WP:FAN, but not enough to delete. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 22:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone explain how the passing mention of the word "spokecard" in the two books added in any way comes anywhere close to meeting the standard of "significant coverage" in the notability guidelines? I saw both these books before I submitted this AfD, and indeed they do verify that spokecards exist, and that sometimes they have advertising on them. Those two data points can be conveyed in a single sentence in Bicycle culture or Bicycle. If spokecards are a signficant expression of culture, or an expression of anything, then why is there not even one single article that takes spokecards as its main subject? The way we know something is significant is by the amount of attention that good, independent sources give to it. This is a classic case of Existence ≠ Notability, or WP:BUTITEXISTS --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chas. Haine does talk about spokecards in ways other than advertising in his book. I left out blogs, which go into spokecards in detail, since they are not acceptable sources. I've poked around the articles in the DIY Culture and the Bike parts categories, and Spoke card is better developed and better referenced than many of them. Dustcap, anyone? Ahalenia (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Ahalenia[reply]

Yep, the blogs and forums don't count, so let's not speak of them again.

Searching Questia I found "Inaugurating 2 Wheels; Bikers Get around Closed Streets", The Washington Times, January 14, 2009, where it says, down in the 4th paragraph, "[Bike valet] users will receive a commemorative ticket and spoke card." Then, via HighBeam, we have "Iowa Farm Groups Come Together To Bring Fun, Farmers And 'Free Food!' To 2011 Ragbrai Riders", States News Service, July 6, 2011. This is only a press release, btw. It tell us they're staging a bike rally about Iowa agriculture, and at each checkpoint they'll hand out spoke cards. Gale (publisher) has zero mention of "spoke card" or "spokecard". Even these two articles, which required resorting to paywalled databases to dig up, do not have spokecards as their subjects. They're about something else, bicycling during the Presidential Inauguration and an agriculture themed rally, and they only mention the spoke cards along the way. Neither article even dwells on the significance of spoke cards, such as by giving us any facts indicating the cards are important.

When I say the cards are used for "advertising" I mean they're a medium: you print stuff on them, whether it be commercial adverts or messages about your group identity or whatever. The problem is, none of our sources consider that important. They mention it, then move on to weightier matters. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking deeper, I'm beginning to lean towards possibly a Merge, tho my vote's still with Keep. The coverage is definitely there, and I can tell you from personal experience that it was definitely a thing, but if we can't find a source that's irrefutable, a merge would be acceptable. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They're not restricted to a subculture; it was common for kids in America (of a bygone era, at least). It made a Wired top 5 list and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and San Francisco Bicycle Coalition teamed together to give away free ones.[5] The sheer volume of blogs about them and eHow, Yahoo Answers and WikiAnswers questions, while not individually useful, are collectively so. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ten million self-published sources like blogs and eHows and Yahoo Answers are as just as meaningless as one. Collectively, any number of self-published sources add up to zero, because zero plus zero is still zero.

    The press release from SFMTA could lead to notability, but only if independent sources find it notable enough to write about. And even then, the press release is about bicycle safety, not spoke cards. Spoke cars are not the subject. The "top 5" list is actually "5 Inexplicable Fixie Fashions", a blog post at Wired by a Charlie Sorrel who has a total of 5 blog posts there, all in 2009. It's an attempt at humor, considering one of the things Sorrel calls "inexplicable" is the Brooks Saddle, a highly respected component that the author himself admits he has. A blog post on economics by Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman would be a reputable source, but a blog post by a non-cycling expert who is spitballing contradictory jokes about hipster fixie riders is not evidence of anything.

    I'm shocked so many editors find these paltry sources to be evidence of notability. If this were a company or a person, it would be obvious that this is trivial, incidental coverage and passing mention. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want them, here is an article about spokecards in a newspaper (print and online); here's one in a magazine (print and online); and here is a published essay in an art exhibition catalogue (print and online). Ahalenia (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Ahalenia[reply]

Yes, of course I really want them. Directly citing significant coverage of the subject is the only point of these AfD discussions. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not surprisingly it was a quick search to find independent, reliable sources that tell us about bicycle spoke cards. [6][7] The very heavy commonness of the activity is what's notable about them.--Oakshade (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, passing mention proves spoke cards exist. It fails to meet Wikipedia's standards. WP:GNG requires significant coverage, not merely a sentence or two in a book. The closest anyone has come is an article about a Cherokee artist who uses spoke cars as a medium above. I think that is a story about an artist, and not about spoke cards, but at least it's within the range of a reasonable argument. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These historical independent, reliable sources that tell us about bicycle spoke cards are beyond the scope of "passing mention". The Wired article mentioned above is substantial too. --Oakshade (talk) 01:35, 20 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hummingbird Heartbeat[edit]

Hummingbird Heartbeat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a courtesy completion of an AfD nomination on behalf of an IP user, User:198.168.38.129 who could not create the new AfD discussion page. The IP stated their rationale for the nomination at the article's talk page[8]: "The song fails notability per WP:NSONGS as it never exactly made headlines or achieved any popularity whatsoever. Regarding release and charting, the chart positions it reached were rather low, and never really made highlights in the music industry. Also, not every single released becomes notable. The song also had no impact whatsoever on Katy Perry's career. If the singles from Katy Hudson aren't notable enough to have their own articles (which actually were significant to her career unloke this song), than this definitely isn't either. If not delete, I strongly suggest merge." Nsk92 (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the completion. 198.168.38.129 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. As determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hummingbird Heartbeat, the song not only passes WP:NSONGS, but also WP:GNG. It charted and there are references discussing it. It is trivial if "the chart positions it reached were rather low", that's a point of view and it is not within the scope of the five pillars. The nominator rationale sounds more like a "I don't think it is notable, then it is not notable". Unless a better argument is presented, there's nothing to delete. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: What's left to argue? I agree with everything Tbhotch said. Prism △ 20:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Upon reviewing the previous debate, the issue that the previous nominator was talking about was not so much notability as it was lack of coverage/amount of info available. If I am reading the current nominator's reasoning correctly, the low chartings indicated that it did not make much if any impact. The nominator is correct in saying that it did not chieve any popularity (popularity = notability = significance), as it is widely unheard of even in Australia and South Korea (fans not counting). I cannot name one Australian or South Korean who heard it much if ever on the air or how it was ever popular in those areas. Also, how exactly is a song that had no significance to an artist or group's career notable? Besides, the notability policies are quite specific and are not the same they were when this page was previously nominated for deletion last February. 174.252.33.128 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  As I explained at the nominators talk page, "the low chartings indicat[ing] it did not make much if any impact" is irrelevant for WP:N. Several of her songs have not "impacted" the world, including but not limited to Thinking of You (Katy Perry song), By the Grace of God (song), Dressin' Up, Peacock (song), Circle the Drain, Walking on Air (Katy Perry song) and Not Like the Movies. All of them, excepting for "Thinking of You", are listed as good articles. Notability is not given by "the impact" they did to the music world, but to how many external reliable and independent references discuss the song. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) or Delete regarding discussion, most if not all of this song's coverage/discussion came from album reviews. WP:NSONGS states Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. Requesting input from @BlueMoonset:, who has done lots of work in WP:NSONGS. As for charts, it probably would need more than just two charts to achieve signifance. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was released as a single in Australia though. Obviously it didn't have much coverage. Prism △ 21:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The area it was released has nothing to do with how notable or not notable it is. Also, as previously indicated, becoming a single/promotional single or charting doesn't automatically make it notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the comments above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to no significance to her career, society, or the music industry 198.54.211.2 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it had become an Internet sensation and/or radio hit, then perhaps it could stay. Since it never became either of those and has hardly any info not from album reviews or from Perry's own words, there's nothing that makes it notable. 174.236.2.9 (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NSONGS, there is little coverage of the song in reliable sources independent of the album. Not notable. Adabow (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep the article but revert the classification of tis song from single back to just a song. The single release is not supported by reliable sources but only by a few radio stations. It is as if it was the radio station themselves that "released" the song. Sometimes certain new sources label the song as single not because it was released as a single but as a synonym to describe a song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jule Firework (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failing WP:NSONGS. While it is true that sometimes radio stations play songs that aren't singles (as was the case with Dark Horse (Katy Perry song) before its single release), this had no impact whatsoever on radio industry. 174.252.48.220 (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question (and comments) - where is the independent significant coverage in reliable sources? Here is my analysis of the article's current references:

• (1) The mention, in its entirety: "'There's a song called Hummingbird Heartbeat. He (Brand) gives me that Hummingbird Heartbeat.'" I do not consider this significant coverage.
• (2) The artist talks about the song in a clip on her YouTube channel. This is not "independent of the artist", as WP:NSONGS suggests.
• (3) Two sentences within an album review. As NSONGS notes, "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability."
• (4) One sentence within an album review (see bullet point #3). Also, I don't believe this review qualifies as a reliable source, given previous discussions on About.com (here and here, for example); regardless, the brevity of the song's mention fails to establish notability per our guidelines.
• (4, 5) Sheet music. No coverage; does not establish notability.
• (6) Album liner notes. "Not independent of the artist or label" (per NSONGS).
• (7) link does not work for me. In any event, a chart listing is not coverage and NSONGS suggests that charting songs with "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria."
• (8) In-depth coverage, but from a source (PopCrush) that does not appear to be reliable (previous discussion here). Even if it is acceptable, NSONGS notes that multiple such non-trivial works are needed.
• (9, 10) Passing mentions on the song's airplay chart position. See bullet point #8.
• (11) Two sentences on the song within a review of the album. See bullet point #3.
• (12) The mention, in its entirety: "The title cut and 'Hummingbird Heartbeat' are also top-down bangers." No significant coverage.
• (13) The mention, in its entirety: "The catchy, uptempo 'Hummingbird Heartbeat' is perhaps best in line with the album's five No. 1s." No significant coverage.
• (14) One sentence. No significant coverage.
• (15) The song is not mentioned in the article.

With this in mind, I'm frankly not seeing sufficient independent, non-trivial coverage to warrant an article on this song, nor do I find the "keep - it charted" arguments to be consistent with NSONGS. Can anyone show me what I'm missing?  Gong show 20:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the info from the article by Ben Norman (About.com). He doesn't meet WP:SPS. Adabow (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.  Gong show 21:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It charted, it's a single moreover.  — ₳aron 00:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — The song is a single and charted, therefore it is notable and should be kept. S△M ^talk 03:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems like the notability policies of WP:NSONGS are being misunderstood by the "keep" voters. Being a single doesn't automatically make it notable, just saying. It needs more info outside of album reviews to be notable. There is very little info available that isn't from album reviews or fan sites (which cannot be used as sources) or anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes NSONGS, has charted on Official airplay and singles chart, received enough third party notability and has been performed live numerous times on her tour. And XXNUG, don't try to reply to my post. Its gonna fall on deaf ears anyways. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question can you provide links to where it recieved significant in-depth coverage on the song and how it is notable? It would need multiple reliable links, and I haven't found any. Neither have Gongshow or Adabow. The vast majority if not all of reliable sources that talk about the song are album reviews, and WP:NSONGS indicates that songs need in-depth significant coverage from multiple reliable sources and states Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. Being performed live on tour is moot as just about every singer and band performs many tracks on tour that never achieve notability. The "gonna fall on deaf ears" part also really wasn't necessary as it comes off as dismissive..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, can someone explain what part of WP:NSONGS this is supposed to meet? The "Australia Hot 100 Airplay" is not a notable or significant chart (you're looking for the ARIA chart in Australia for that purpose), and I don't see how peaking at #124 on a minor South Korean chart meets the letter or spirit of NSONGS criteria #1. It clearly does not meet #2 or #3. That takes us to the GNG, but most of the mentions of this song are trivial, a sentence or so about how it's a decent track (as picked apart very well by User:Gongshow above. It's a plausible search term, so should be redirected to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album), but that's about it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Frankly, it doesn't meet any of the WP:NSONGS criteria. A question I have for @Gongshow: is: do you vote delete or redirect? So far, there has been more weight for delete than anything else unless your vote is redirect. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lankiveil's summary is on point: Hummingbird Heartbeat is certainly a plausible search term, so I prefer a redirect over deletion. The song does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS for the reasons outlined above.  Gong show 16:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over @Lankiveil:'s rationale again, I agree that redirect is a very good idea and change my vote to include it. I'm fine with either deleting or redirecting. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:07, 25 February 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanser[edit]

Cleanser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NCORP Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is fairly ghastly, is essentially unreferenced, has the wrong title (it should almost certainly be facial cleanser or skin cleanser, which is currently a redirect to here) and, despite attempts by editors over the years, still reads as if it comes from a commercially-published guide to skin care. But I just don't see how it falls under the nominator's rationale for deletion. The article is about a general, almost certainly notable, class of products, manufactured by a variety of companies, and it does not narrow itself down (or even mention) any specific product or those produced by particular companies. The article could certainly do with being completely rewritten into something more like the one on lipstick, but that's a matter of editing? PWilkinson (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP is valid for companies, organizations and any of its products and services (please visit the page for the verification purpose). And let me admit, I mis-understood Cleanser, perhaps. It is not a product of a particular company, for I brought it to AfD. It is a general product manufactured by a number of companies. I understood Cleanser product, a self-titled brand name. As, Cleanser is a product you can use to dash dash dash..., Many people use a cleanser once or more times a day.., Using a cleanser to remove dirt is considered to be a better alternative to bar soap.. and many similar phrases interprets promotional tone. Well, I was just wrong considering a product under self-titled brand name using Wikipedia as WP:Advertisement with no sign of significance. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by the nominator: I withdraw my nomination. I mis-understood Cleanser as a brand name. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:45, 18 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NYX (cosmetics)[edit]

NYX (cosmetics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NCORP It is probably a copy of recently speedy deleted article Nyx cosmetics. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article fails WP:GNG with no indication of notability and no secondary sources just their own website and Facebook references. Theroadislong (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Theroadislong. Fails WP:NCORP. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 18 February 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) 01:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jr. (UK and Ireland)[edit]

Nick Jr. (UK and Ireland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources. Not notable. Pure cruft. One of those international children's channels that broadcasts the same programming as the original channel. WP:OR. It may be notable if it's in the main article, Nickelodeon (UK and Ireland). Finealt (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I will refer readers to WP:Articles for deletion/Nickelodeon (Europe) which has been similarly nominated by Finealt. This user is removing vast chunks of content and blanking articles in favour of redirects to barely-related or completely unrelated articles. Most of the reasons given (including 'this channel does not exist') are completely wrong. Nick Jr UK is a longstanding television channel with no question as to its notability. If Finealt has issues with the content of the article he should discuss the problems he perceives and take part in making things better, not just delete the article wholesale, as he has now done to hundreds of other articles in his edit history. The wholesale replacement of articles with redirects is deleting via the backdoor, avoiding discussion and consensus. His central claim that each of his target channels "broadcasts the same programming as the original channel" is not correct as each international channel differs in which programmes they do and do not show. And as is again apparent from his edit history, anyone reverting his changes receive warnings and threats. Such behaviour is inappropriate and should stop. Note also that this request for deletion has occurred only after multiple unsuccessful attempted redirects to unrelated articles and an unsuccessful request for page protection to prevent those redirects being removed. Bonusballs (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the proposer has now blanked the page and redirect three times today even after starting the AFD. Murry1975 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is it's own channel. So it's notable. I looked at your edit history and you edit war and even give personal attacks. I took your barnstar away because of this. Keenan202 (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Keenan202. Hafspajen (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. Yes, it contains a lot of OR. Maybe I could add pictures instead. TDFan2006 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Originates plenty of its own programming, obviously notable. Nate • (chatter) 23:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball Keep. Close. Szzuk (talk) 21:10, 21 February 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 Nomination withdrawn. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Degen's eight-square identity[edit]

Degen's eight-square identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Why is this article so interesting?? The category of natural numbers "being the sum of 8 squares" is hardly interesting because if we understand that any sum of less than 8 squares can be re-written as a sum of 8 squares by adding 0's so that the terms total 8, then there are no natural numbers less than 42.6 trillion that don't belong in this "being the sum of 8 squares" category. (Using the greedy algorithm, 42,600,227,803,223 is equal to 6526884^2 + 3612^2 + 84^2 + 12^2 + 4^2 + 2^2 + 1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2; the smallest number that takes 9 terms with this algorithm.) Does "squares" mean "non-zero squares" in this article?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know much about the customary notability criteria for mathematical theorems, but it seems to me that this one has a good case for being notable. First of all, it has an article on mathworld: [9], which is subject to editorial scrutiny. Second, this identity is discussed in some detail in an article in the The American Mathematical Monthly, available here if you have JSTOR access, and a review of which is here: (MR1650838) if you have MR access. It's also been generalized in more directions than are noted in the article itself, e.g. MR0200284. I'd say it's notable, but I don't know how these things are judged. I think the overly close paraphrasing from the Mathworld article is much more of a concern than notability.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. And to Georgia guy: unbelievable. There are only four normed division algebras: the real numbers, complex numbers, quaternions, and octonions, each one of which has an ${\displaystyle 1,2,4,8}$-square bilinear identity behind it. The 8-square is behind octonion algebra, and it contains the lower dimensional ones as special cases. Perhaps you should suggest deleting the entire family: Brahmagupta-Fibonacci two-square, Euler's four-square, and Degen's eight-square, just to be consistent? Are you affiliated with the Mathematics Department of your university that you feel you are competent to delete an encyclopaedia entry on a particular instance of Pfister's Theorem? Titus III (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The OP should have raised a query on the talk page if they don't understand why a formula like this is of note. Or the maths reference desk as they clearly have a general problem with the idea of a formula as opposed to numbers. This particular formula is very notable. Dmcq (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid reason for deletion. It's in MathWorld as a subject[10] and Google Books gives several hits, plus there's Christopher David Hollings, "The history of the 2-, 4- and 8-square identities", BSHM Bulletin: Journal of the British Society for the History of Mathematics, Volume 21, Issue 2, 2006 --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've asked the nominator to withdraw this as it is obviously not a suitable candidate for AfD. I will note that I've seen it called the Degen-Graves-Cayley Eight-Square Identity and the Degen-Graves Eight-Square Identity. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability in mathematics is slippery enough that we should err on the side of caution in deletion. (John Ohno) 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I vote keep and expand by explaining more completely its connections to complex numbers, quaternions, and octonions, thus explaining why the article should be considered interesting. ([User: Kermit Rose. February 17 2014 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kermit1941 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. Per my understanding of the above votes to keep, sometimes number categories that aren't interesting as sub-categories of natural numbers (e.g. numbers that are the sum of 8 squares) might be interesting for some purposes. Georgia guy (talk) 18:45, 17 February 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agharti (band)[edit]

Agharti (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO (received non-notable awards, released an album for a non-notable record company). GregorB (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created over a redirect on 10 November 2013‎ by User:Iva Agharti. I tagged it three days later with a notability flag and there has been no move to resolve the problem since.--Derek Andrews (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. --DGaw (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 19 February 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. There's no consensus for delete; there seems to be disagreement, however, on whether it should be kept outright or merged to some other article. slakr^\ talk / 08:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration[edit]

2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just a copypasta of a declaration of unclear notability. — Lfdder (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While some coverage does exist, I don't see the case for standalone notability. GregorB (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Cyprus dispute#New negotiations. Looks like the best target to me. Reunification of Cyprus seems more natural, but it is currently a redirect to Annan Plan for Cyprus - not sure if this is really warranted, as I don't think the topic of reunification can be subsumed by the Annan Plan. GregorB (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To merge the 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration to Cyprus dispute#New negotiations is unsuitable. Because, in Cyprus dispute#New negotiations, every new event is summarized as a couple of lines. However, 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration is long enough not to be merged there. On the other hand, Cyprus dispute is very large article. Taking there every other thing unnecessarily inflates and blows up that page. These are the first things at a glance; there are others as well. Therefore, it is best to leave it as it is.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below - without excessive quoting, it is a couple of lines. GregorB (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After the recent expansion by PWilkinson, the topic does seem to meet the threshold of standalone notability, and a possible merge has been made counterproductive by the size and structure of the new content (even without the debatable inclusion of the declaration's text). GregorB (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose (The article must not be deleted): The justifications for the deletion are very illogical at all:
  

copy-paste of a declaration:The agreed articles of international agreements must not be changed. Taking international agreements mutatis mutandis is not copy-paste. The articles and text of the "Joint Declaration" is completely the same everywhere, and must be so:
Cyprus Mail, 11.02.2014: http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/02/11/joint-declaration-final-version-as-agreed-between-the-two-leaders/
Parikiaki, 11.02.2014..: http://www.parikiaki.com/2014/02/cyprus-joint-declaration-full-text/
Turkish Independent, 13.02.2014: http://www.turkishindependent.com/news/view/639
Kibkom Times, 13.02.2014: http://www.kibkomtimes.com/02.php
Greek News Online, 09.02.2014: http://www.greeknewsonline.com/anastasiades-eroglu-agreed-to-resume-a-new-round-of-talks/
WordBulletin, 11.02.2014: http://www.worldbulletin.net/world/128702/cyprus-talks-resume-in-friendly-atmosphere
European Voice, 11.02.2014: http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2014/february/cyprus-reunification-talks-restart/79625.aspx
Predidency of RoC, 11.02.2014: http://www.presidency.gov.cy/Presidency/Presidency.nsf/All/52F9D262093B3137C2257C7C0040EC43?OpenDocument

If one changes any article of the agreement and use his/her wordings, many can object, first of all, the sides itself! There may exist a bias to some extent in that case.
a declaration of unclear notability: The Joint Declaration just shows at which point the Cyprus Dispute is now for 51 years (since the beginning of the negotiations).
"lacking standalone notability": The article makes it easy to understand the current positions of the concerned sides. Bright picture of future Cyprus is seen clearly for outside observers and non-experts. Besides this, the Joint Declarations are important in international arena and is listed in Wikipedia: Joint Declaration: Sino-British Joint Declaration, Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, June 15th North-South Joint Declaration, 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration. The article is linked in Wikipedia many times: Cyprus_dispute#New_negotiations, Joint_Declaration, Category:Foreign_relations_of_Northern_Cyprus, Northern Cyprus and the European Union.Alexyflemming (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No shit you can't reword the declaration, what I meant was that there's no other content. If this goes down in history as an important joint declaration, we can reinstate the article. WP:CRYSTAL — Lfdder (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft isn't content, Alexyflemming. You can stop now. — Lfdder (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say "No Sh..t". Do you think you are taking care the minimal respect to the tounge you are using during Wikipedia discussions? Please use polite language...

There is content other than the declaration itself:

2014_Cyprus_Joint_Declaration#Aftermath_of_the_Joint_Declaration: The aftermath of the declaration.
2014_Cyprus_Joint_Declaration#See_Also: The agreements in which Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are among the signatories.
2014_Cyprus_Joint_Declaration#External_Links: From here various valuable external links are reached.
(WP:Crystal: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.): The declaration is not speculation, a realized event. You seem unfamiliar with the Wikipedia policies.Alexyflemming (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If what you describe as the aftermath turns out to be substantial, it should be covered in an article about this round of negotiations. Otherwise, I see no reason why it can't go in Cyprus dispute. See also and external links are not content -- shouldn't be a consideration here. That's got nothing to do with what I said. Besides, you've used WP:CRYSTAL arguments, e.g. "Bright picture of future Cyprus is seen clearly for outside observers and non-experts". — Lfdder (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge No notability for separate article, since it does not contain anything else than the Declaration itself. By the way, Alexyflemming argues that there are many links in Wikipedia to the article, but somehow forgot to mention that every one of these links has been made by himself. --T*U (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is content other than the declaration itself.. Also, the article just started at 12.02.2014. Hence, the fact that currently only me linked to the article does not show others will not link in future. When the article gets mature and its awareness increases, other people may link the article or use it in other ways. Alexyflemming (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is almost certainly inappropriate, at least at this stage, to give the full text of the declaration in the article - what would be appropriate is a short summary or even just a link at a suitable place in the article to the full text of the agreement - it is ludicrous to dismiss an agreement like this between the leaders of two communities which have effectively been at war for forty years as not notable. The sources Alexyflemming has given above are all, to the best of my ability to judge, both reliable and substantial, even though it is details of the background of and/or reaction to the agreement that they should be sourcing rather than the verbatim text of the agreement. And there is plenty more available international coverage with which to give the detail that needs to be in the article. And the story is almost bound to continue - for obvious reasons if the initiative succeeds, but even in the case of failure, in terms of the political consequences in one or both communities. And the part of Cyprus dispute dealing with recent years is currently basically a timeline with only chronology to connect it up - the declaration and its aftermath will be far easier at least for the moment to develop as a spin-out article that is just summarised in Cyprus dispute. PWilkinson (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you list predominantly do not treat the declaration directly, as a central topic, but as a part of the much larger story of Cyprus reunification. This makes it natural to treat it this way too, and split it out once it naturally evolves into a standalone topic, as per WP:SPLIT. That's why I'm changing my position from delete to merge (see above). GregorB (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To merge the 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration to Cyprus dispute#New negotiations is unsuitable. Because, in Cyprus dispute#New negotiations, every new event is summarized as a couple of lines. However, 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration is long enough not to be merged there. On the other hand, Cyprus dispute is very large article. Taking there every other thing unnecessarily inflates and blows up that page. These are the first things at a glance; there are others as well. Therefore, it is best to leave it as it is.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is long simply because it seems to unnecessarily quote the entire text of the declaration. Without it, it is two or three sentences, which is in line with coverage of other events in the target section. GregorB (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote to merge as per GregorB's arguments. What little content there is, can easily be merged. The entire text of the declaration has no place in a Wikipedia article. (Neither will you find Magna Carta, the United States Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or similar texts. They belong in Wikisource, as this Declaration does, if at all.) --T*U (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"little content": The article is just 1-week-old. Please be patient. Though it is little now, it is growing. Many large articles of Wikipedia started with little content once upon a day.

"The entire text of the declaration has no place":This depends on the article. For the case of Cyprus, the sides are negotiating for 51 years. There are thousands of books, articles on Cyprus Dispute, and this Joint Declaration clearly summarizes to what point the sides reached after 51 years. In Magna Carta, the United States Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there were not two very rival sides as is the case for Cyprus.

Merge option:Merge is not suitable: In Cyprus dispute, or Cyprus dispute#New negotiations, every new event is summarized as a couple of lines. However, 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration is long enough not to be merged there. On the other hand, Cyprus dispute is very large article. Taking there every other thing unnecessarily inflates and blows up that page. These are the first things at a glance; there are others as well. Therefore, it is best to leave it as it is. Alexyflemming (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just added some background information to the article. I would ask participants in further discussion here and the closing administrator to note that the above discussion took place before I did so. I do not think that this precludes merger to Cyprus dispute, but would suggest that if this happens, the declaration and resulting negotiations and other developments are given a separate subsection there. PWilkinson (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me - I've changed my position from "merge" to "keep" (see above). Thanks! GregorB (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except this article's no longer about the joint declaration, but the new round of negotiations. — Lfdder (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...which seems to be based on the declaration. To me, the aftermath section makes the reasonable (if not really rock-solid) case for standalone notability. GregorB (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the declaration's been made out to be the foundation for it -- but I'm not sure to what degree we ought to reflect the political theatre. If the article's to be kept, it seems to me that it should be moved to a new title, e.g. '2014 Cyprus talks'. Are we gonna keep expanding the aftermath section with everything that's to come? — Lfdder (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In the future, the article's title or focus might change, and it is quite possible that eventually it will indeed become just a section in Reunification of Cyprus or some such target. (And, to be quite honest, it should have really been started this way.) GregorB (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that a deletion/merge is the best solution, since this article came off on the wrong foot, so to speak. I feel it is far to early to say that the "2014 Cyprus talks" deserves a separate article in WP. But if consensus goes against me, I strongly suggest an immediate name change. --T*U (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk (Negotiation) is the most frequently observed thing in Cyprus. Since 1963, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are talking (negotiating). In Wikipedia, these processes that extends to years are called "New Negotiations". That's to say, for every year a new heading is not opened like "2008 Cyprus Talks", "2009 Cyprus Talks", "2010 Cyprus Talks" etc. On the other hand, when one looks into the Agreements signed by Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, their number is very few:Zürich and London Agreement(1959), Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots (1975), 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration. When looked in this way, the importance of the "Joint Declaration" is awared; and hence, I think, not only "changing the title" but also "merging the article" would not be a good idea. As for the other agreements (1959 and 1975), there are separate Wiki articles.Alexyflemming (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the declaration is not an agreement, but just what it is called: a declaration. It is a piece of paper stating good will to try to make something happen. But it has not happened yet, and nobody knows if anything significant will happen. If the negotiations get started, and if they ever lead to anything, then there may be room for a separate article on Wikipedia about "2014 Cyprus talks" or even "Cyprus reunification", or it might end up as "2014 Cyprus crisis". The declaration per se will, however, hardly be the pivoting point of that article.

To the point about there already being an article about the Population exchange of 1975. Yes, there is, because you started it, and it has been suggested for redirect/merge because it has even less real content than this one. Claiming support from something you yourself have created is, in effect, claiming support from yourself. --T*U (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Cyprus dispute#New negotiations. While the background section was recently added, that section is not about the joint declaration. First four references in this section (or that mean the text before the actual text of the declaration) even do not mention the joint declaration. That means that probably this information does not belong here or if the article covers wider topic, the current title is incorrect. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not the depository of legal texts, so copying the full text of the declaration into the article is not in line with the policies. The article should be about the declaration, not the mirror of the declaration's text. Taking away these parts, there is very few information to justify the separate article. Therefore, merging into Cyprus dispute#New negotiations seems to be the best option. If the article would be kept and not merged, it should be speedily renamed 2014 Cyprus talks to keep the title in line with the content. Beagel (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Alexyflemming (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.The case should be closed as Keep I think. Many peoples contributed and still develops the article. Also, thanks to PWilkinson since he contibuted to the article with very good appearance both readability and embellishments.Alexyflemming (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You only get one vote, so please strike out one of your votes. --T*U (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources provided by User:Alexyflemming, which are substantial and show this is a real thing. It is reasonable to assume that as the talks progress, there will be further updates which will give the article scope to expand. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep The article in its current form clearly mets the original objection. It is not just a reprint of the text. Possible merges can be considered separately. DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 27 February 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 redirect to List of Decepticons. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sledge (Transformers)[edit]

Sledge (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Decepticons. Does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Fansites and comprehensive catalogs don't count toward establishing notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Decepticons. As noted, there is nothing to indicate any "real-world" notability to support a stand-alone article, however as part of the group, this is a reasonable search term. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:59, 24 February 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 List of Decepticons. I've moved a bit of the content over there; if anyone wants to add more, they can. I've also redirected Long Haul to flight length as per The Bushranger and put a hatnote at the flight length article. --Jakob (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long Haul[edit]

Long Haul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Aside from a minor bit of trivia, most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Long Haul (Transformers) and then Merge to List of Decepticons. Notable only as part of the group, despite the WP:BOMBARDMENT of references there is nothing indicating any out-of-universe notability at all to support a standalone article; Wikipedia is not TFWiki. After the rename and merge-redirect, Redirect Long Haul to Flight length...where Long-haul currently redirects to, as the far more likely search term. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:56, 24 February 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) 01:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pagpag: Siyam na Buhay[edit]

Pagpag: Siyam na Buhay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails verifiablility, non-notable film. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was able to find quite a few sources, although it would probably be best if a Tagalog speaking editor could also look for sources. I'll ask someone from the Philippines WP to search for sourcing. In any case, this looks to be a fairly notable mainstream film in the Philippines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes Wikipedia:Notability (films) (won awards from a major Philippine award giving body and is nationally distributed). It is also verified by major news and media outlets.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Here are some reliable sources that discuss the film: [11] [12]. And according to this news item, the film won two awards at the Metro Manila Film Festival: [13]. —seav (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly even a Snow Keep - It competed in last year's Metro Manila Film Festival (for which it won two awards), it was a relatively successful film (passes national distribution), and has had a number of reviews by reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 19 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awudu Ibrahim[edit]

Awudu Ibrahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD contested by Nfitz (talk · contribs) on the grounds that this player has played for Mohun Bagan in the I-League - but this is not correct. According to his article, this player played for Mohun Bagan between 2005 and 2006; the I-League did not begin operations until 2007. Therefore the claim that this player has played in a fully-professional league is not correct, meaning he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Furthermore he does not look to have received significant coverage, meaning he also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hasn't played in a fully-pro league ... or even close. Nfitz (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Not played in WP:FPL or senior international football. Fenix down (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 20 February 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuil Manousos[edit]

Emmanuil Manousos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. I could find zero maths publications in reliable journals showing that this person is actually a mathematician. Progress in Physics is known for poor peer review and unreliability, so this article seems to just be fringe promotion. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has a BSc in mathematics and his profession is a mathematics teacher. Besides Progress in Physics he has published in three other journals and written two books. He had also some coverage from the Greek press. I am not sure if the person is notable according to Wikipedia's criteria. Aristarchus11 (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tried searching on his name in Greek too and didn't find anything suggesting notability. Simply not wiki notable. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 18 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Kung-fu[edit]

Korean Kung-fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

On notability grounds. Unreferenced and does not appear to be practiced outside of a few places and of questionable background. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 10:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article could be a hoax: one of the two referenced points to a laser hair removal site [14] jmcw (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax or not, there's nothing that shows this satisfies WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As written, fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 18 February 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. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 10:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veeramanohar(U-16cricketer)[edit]

Veeramanohar(U-16cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable, possibly a hoax, no references. The creator has created several pages with similar titles, some of which have been deleted. He has almost no constructive contributions and has been given a level 4 warning for vandalism. jfd34 (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. It's complete nonsense. Jevansen (talk) 08:46, 16 February 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 / 08:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SchooLinks[edit]

• Note to closing administrator: The following accounts commenting on this discussion are checkuser-confirmed socks and have been blocked: Fang.katie (talk · contribs), Menabrena (talk · contribs), Alwongs (talk · contribs), Lukeevanwilliams (talk · contribs). This may affect the outcome of the discussion. Risker (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

SchooLinks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company/website lacking independent, non-trivial support. CSD removed by ANOM users. Fails WP:COMPANY or WP:WEB. reddogsix (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 09:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article. User: reddogsix seems to be the only user that constantly wants to delete this article with no basis. He mentioned SchooLinks is trivial, however, as pointed out there are hundreds of websites that have articles in Wikipedia and they are truly trivial, they are just another social network, such as Blauk which ranks on Alexa at 331 000. Blauk has an article, and many websites alike. It is unfortunate Reddogsix is being too strict on this meanwhile there are hundreds of actual non-trivial articles out there. We have to acknowledge that SchooLinks is very important to the international education industry. They cooperate together with thousands of schools in the nation and hundreds of agencies around the world. They are not charging anything and are revolutionizing the studying abroad process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwongs (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article in question fails to meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Specifically, it fails WP:WEB, WP:COMPANY, and WP:N. The support editors have provided is trivial in nature, they are not in-depth articles about the website. As I have noted numerous times when discussing this article, Alexa rankings have no bearing on the notability of the site, if you disagree, please cite the specific Wikipedia guideline that contradicts my comment. Additionally, just because something else exists is not a criteria for allowing this article to exist.

One more thing, I have never said the website in question is trivia, I have always said the notability support for the article is trivial. If you are going to quote, please let's be accurate. reddogsix (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article.This article is useful for quick references about international education programs all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.133.142 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — 201.103.133.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - How does, "useful for quick references about international education programs all over the world" meet any Wikipedia criteria for inclusion? The article in question fails to meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Specifically, it fails WP:WEB, WP:COMPANY, and WP:N. The support editors have provided is trivial in nature, they are not in-depth articles about the website. As I have noted numerous times when discussing this article, Alexa rankings have no bearing on the notability of the site, if you disagree, please cite the specific Wikipedia guideline that contradicts my comment. Additionally, just because something else exists is not a criteria for allowing this article to exist.

• Keep this article, the only user against this is "Reddogsix." Reddogsix is constantly requesting this page to be deleted without any rationale. I've seen that 3 different users have reverted the notice of this page to be deleted, yet he continues adding into the list. This page is clearly not promoting any services SchooLinks offers. In fact, SchooLinks is a web directory that is very useful for international students, at free of charge. And it's a very useful guide for a niche market: international education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.116.102 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — 128.189.116.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - Please indicate how the article meets the requirements in WP:42. reddogsix (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer on how this article meets the requirement WP:42 : You can check multiple credible sources regarding SchoolLinks. You can check TechCrunch which is a news website focused on information technology companies,they have manually verified SchooLinks's info. Check this:http://www.crunchbase.com/company/schoolinks

In the above link you can check TechCrunch has added checkmarks to their data, which means they have verified them.

In addition, SchooLinks has been featured in a newspaper in the British Weekly, a newspaper. Please check: http://www.british-weekly.com/.

Also SchooLinks ranks in the top 200,000 most popular websites in the world, according to Alexa Ranking. Their website traffic is significantly high, and provide a lot of utility for international students wanting to study abroad. There are a lot of articles of websites that rank lower than SchooLinks such as:

1. ASmallWorld ranks 604, 704.

2. Audimated ranks 982, 710

3.Advogato ranks 281, 540

5. Blauk ranks 331 000

6. FledgeWing ranks 1,537,62

And the list continues....So it does not make sense to delete SchooLinks, especially since it's perhaps the most useful and one and more visited websited for international education, and it's free for everyone to use! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.116.102 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Unfortunately the article does not meet the criteria in WP:42. The support you provided is trivial in nature. Once more, Alexa rankings do not support notability - popularity is not part of the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article. Users have provided lots of links from prestigious sources from IT news, such as:

http://www.crunchbase.com/company/schoolinks

http://www.techvibes.com/company-directory/schoolinks

http://www.learningplanetedu.com/

http://www.british-weekly.com/

In my opinion, this article should remain and should not be deleted. SchooLinks helps students find their ideal school abroad in a non-subjective way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeevanwilliams (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - None of this coverage is significant in nature. "We need references that discuss the subject – directly, in detail. Not just passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the name in it." The article in question fails to meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Specifically, it fails WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:COMPANY, and WP:N. The support editors have provided is trivial in nature, they are not in-depth articles about the website. As I have noted numerous times when discussing this article, Alexa rankings have no bearing on the notability of the site, if you disagree, please cite the specific Wikipedia guideline that contradicts my comment. Additionally, just because something else exists is not a criteria for allowing this article to exist nor is "SchooLinks helps students find their ideal school abroad in a non-subjective way" a valid criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was not able to find any reliable, third-party coverage on this website. In response to the above comment, the fact that there are notable websites with lower alexa rankings does not make this website notable as well. --JamesMoose (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I invite JamesMoose and reddogsix to look into other Wikipedia pages of websites that have WAY LESS coverage than SchooLinks, such as Blauk and yet they have a Wikipedia page. Can you expand on this? Why you don't place a notice of deletion for that article there? I think this is getting personal and you are being too stubborn. The purpose of Wikipedia is to have things documented; and is our job, contributors, to keep out businesses promoting themselves, but SchooLinks is not even selling anything and they are changing the way students select schools in the U.S. SchooLinks is something I attest is revolutionary, if you take 5 mins to comprehend it you would understand. The fact that SchooLinks ranks top 30 K in the nation and top 196 K in the world means is notable. I am not sure how much you know about websites but you have to understand that Alexa ranking is a factor. Even if Wikipedia states otherwise,Alexa Ranking is a factor by de facto. Take a look at websites that rank on top Alexa, they all have articles. You cannot find the correlation? You mention popularity does not matter? Then it begs the question why there are articles such as Charlie Bit My Finger..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwongs (talk • contribs) 06:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - None of this coverage is significant in nature. "We need references that discuss the subject – directly, in detail. Not just passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the name in it." The article in question fails to meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Specifically, it fails WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:COMPANY, and WP:N. The support editors have provided is trivial in nature, they are not in-depth articles about the website. As I have noted numerous times when discussing this article, Alexa rankings have no bearing on the notability of the site, if you disagree, please cite the specific Wikipedia guideline that contradicts my comment. Additionally, just because something else exists is not a criteria for allowing this article to exist. reddogsix (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please check out this link http://www.learningplanetedu.com/inicio/schoolinks-com-ayuda-a-estudiantes-encontrar-su-escuela-ideal/. It is a review of schoolinks.com in Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menabrena (talk • contribs) 07:13, 19 February 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jafri Malin Abdullah[edit]

Jafri Malin Abdullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Low GScholar citation rates. No indication that this biography meets any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Randykitty (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 09:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 09:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I could not find sources that would support a WP:PROF#C1 claim and I didn't see anything else that would pass WP:PROF or GNG; a little hard to do a conclusive search given the geographic/cultural divide, so could be persuaded otherwise, but given what is there does not pass. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 24 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic at the 2018 Winter Olympics[edit]

Czech Republic at the 2018 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The event is four years away and the standard has been to create the articles a few months before the games begin. Also no references and it looks like we have been trolled. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [of the same reasons]:[reply]

Albania at the 2018 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete both, no third-party coverage yet, nor is any likely to exist for the next few years. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Huon (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced, impossible to reference, way too soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While it is likely that atheletes from these countries will qualify for the next Olympics, until that process of qualification has happened, this fails WP:CRYSTAL. Re-create when at least one athelete has actually booked their place at the 2018 games. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 09:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 09:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (deliver) @ 09:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete both athletes do not qualify till at least 2017. This is far crystal balling. LibStar (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too soon and too slight. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. There's also no sources to back up the qualifications.Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now - It's simply too soon. Recreate in 2017 or so. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete/weak move as per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps may be moved to author's userspace to be maintained by the author as qualifications are made in 2017 and the games commence. Rarkenin (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (userfy if desired), this is far too soon. Matty.007 20:52, 21 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Street grid (Denver–Aurora Metropolitan Area)[edit]

Street grid (Denver–Aurora Metropolitan Area) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, has no sources, is excessively long and confusing and really doesn't have any encyclopedic value. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge what's salvageable: A list of seemingly every street in the Denver area without much anything else really doesn't really equal an article worth keeping. There are some factoids in the paragraphs that could go into the articles for the individual cities, like the way the streets were when Auraria was first founded. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stuff that can be salvaged could go into Denver#City streets and/or Aurora, Colorado#Transportation Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The topic isn't notable, and the article is the product of original research by an editor studying maps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 09:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like original research. Pburka (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a more comprehensive article about Denver streets. The list portion doesn't look usable, but the lead and the first section does. Epicgenius (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you believe that reliable sources can be found to support the lead and first section? It looks like pure WP:OR to me. The author even describes driving around Denver to observe the streets. Pburka (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure you could find at least a couple nuggets of truth in this, probably from the local historical society or library. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps so, Supernerd11, but we don't keep articles at AfD based on theoretical sources that might possibly be found, but rather on actual sources brought forward during the course of the debate. And when you recommend merging, there needs to be an identified target for the merge. What is it in this case? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's probably worth mentioning in a sentence or two in Grid plan. Epicgenius (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I strongly oppose a merge into grid plan. That article has nothing whatsoever to do with Denver. Pburka (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete There's no need to record an inevitably inaccurate list of all of Denver's streets. Mangoe (talk) 11:46, 19 February 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) 09:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plexigrass[edit]

Plexigrass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced vanity page of an indie band - Altenmann >t 01:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (constabulary) @ 10:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 10:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. GregorB (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this group to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  Gong show 19:37, 17 February 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) 01:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in Mental Testing[edit]

Bias in Mental Testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails wp:nbook, created by a blocked sock, merge into author article. aprock (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The book is certainly both notable and controversial. It meets WP:NBOOK as it "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", namely, hundreds of reviews. Though the original author has since been blocked, several other editors have contributed to the article. Any shortcomings in the current version of the article should be addressed by normal editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have multiple citations dealing with the book as a subject? I can't find any significant reviews, and it's not at all clear to me that all books which are reviewed merit an article on wikipedia. Reviewing WP:NBOOK further, it's clearly the case that simple reviews are not sufficient, but that critical analysis of the source must also be provided. aprock (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the sources already in the article, the book was the subject of a very lengthy and detailed review by David Hawkins, published in the New York Times on July 6, 1980. Unfortunately, most of the review is behind a paywall. But I am a New York Times subscriber, and I can attest that the review is serious, detailed, and 17 paragraphs long. And those are dense, analytical paragraphs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another deeply analytical source is a paper called An Argument Opposing Jensen on Test Bias: The Psychological Aspects, by Janice Dowd Scheuneman, in Arthur Jensen: Consensus And Controversy, published by Routledge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is the book Perspectives on Bias in Mental Testing, co-authored by Cecil R. Reynolds, which mentions Jensen 82 times. This is published by Plenum Press, an imprint of Springer Science+Business Media. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also worthy of consideration is the Handbook of Psychological Assessment, published by Elsevier, which says "One of the most controversial figures in mental bias research is Jensen, of the University of California at Berkeley; his most controversial book is Bias in Mental Testing (1980). According to Jensen, mental testing has been criticized because of one or more of the following reasons:" The book then lists nine factors, and spends several pages analyzing them. Need I go on? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources you list which address the book at any length are contemporary with the publication of the book. It may have generated some controversy when it came out, and it certainly deserves extensive discussion in the author article, but it's not sufficiently notable to deserve it's own article. aprock (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Handbook of Psychological Assessment was published 20 years later. In any event notability is not temporary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aprock, you can't just go making up notability criteria. This book was reviewed in dozens of high quality journals when it came out and it continues to be discussed. I think Cullen328's listed enough, so I won't waste my time with more, but if you search on the title in JSTOR you'll find reviews in the British Journal of Educational Studies, Contemporary Sociology, the American Journal of Education (2 distinct reviews), and so on. It clearly satisfies WP:NBOOK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (whisper) @ 10:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 10:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. You may not enjoy reading the book, or approve of it, or think it reliable, but it has certainly attracted detailed critical attention. Another example here (JSTOR access is free for a few items). Thincat (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That contemporary book review is not for general audiences, and does not establish notability of the book. The book should obviously be covered, but the proper place is in the author's article. aprock (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. I see that the nominator here means to uphold Wikipedia policy. I am aware from following his edits since 2010 that the nominator has in mind to continue long-delayed article cleanup following a 2010 ArbCom case, which found that the articles related to the topic of this article have been subject to much edit-warring and use of sockpuppets and meatpuppets to push points of view. I think his suggestion that discussion of this book should be merged with the biographical article on the book's author (who is no longer living) is a sound suggestion consistent with Wikipedia policy. I watchlist that article (as I watchlist the article on the book, which is a book I own) and I can contribute to updating the article per Wikipedia policy if the nominator's suggestion is followed here. The editors who have kindly suggested keeping the separate article on the book also make valid points, so I don't oppose their point of view. Because I own and have read the book, and own quite a few Wikipedia reliable sources that refer to the book, my main interest here is to make sure that we establish due weight for claims about the book and its influence and due weight for the factual claims about the world made in the book, which is important for upholding Wikipedia policy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but people here will dispute the claim that the book isn't notable. Editorially, it could be very sensible to merge and that can be achieved without making doubtful claims. Two topics can be merged even when both are separately notable. AfD is not the right venue for getting consensus for a merge though merge can be a legitimate outcome here. Is it too late for the nominator to consider closing this? Thincat (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put words on his keyboard, but I think the nominator's concern is WP:WEIGHT, and that genuinely is a concern here. We don't have a lot of separate articles about each and every book that is published in English, and I have seen some very skewed sampling of the books available on the topics that that book is about proposed as stand-alone articles on Wikipedia. This, I think, is one of those issues where very distinct Wikipedia policies all apply, and I respect your point of view and the nominator's about which policies to apply to the issue before us here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, we have a very large number of articles on notable books, and this one seems indisputably notable to me and should not be considered "each and every book". I routinely recommend deleting articles on non-notable books. In this case, nominator asks for substantive, analytical reviews, which I easily find and provide. We learn that several books have been written about this book. Now, the reviews are too contemporaneous. Or one is not for a general audience. But one source was published 20 years later, and the first I provided was the New York Times. There is no doubt in my mind that this book meets WP:NBOOK so instead the argument seems to be that the book is too controversial, or that we have too many articles on controversial books on race and intelligence, or that merging to the author would result in one less entry on someone's watch list. If ArbCom thinks the article should be deleted, they should say so and tell us why. Otherwise, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First, it meets WP:NBOOK clause (1) per Cullen328. Second, it meets NBOOK clause (5): The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. Given that Jensen's work must be taken into account by any scholar writing on race and intelligence, and given that his work has been the subject of lengthy discussions by many eminent thinkers, and given that Jensen is one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century, I think clause (5) is met as well. Only one of the criteria is sufficient, hence this book is notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. -- GreenC 04:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "...only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging...". Per WP:MAD, merger would mean that we don't delete. Andrew (talk) 18:44, 21 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fritz Juengling[edit]

Charles Fritz Juengling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has referenciness, but it seems to be all smoke and mirrors. Once you strip out directories, genealogies, primary sources (X has been cited by Y, source: paper by Y citing X) you have a person who seems to fail WP:PROF on the grounds of lack of reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 00:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I came to basically the same conclusion as the nom a few days ago when I put a PROD on the article, which was subsequently taken down. The extensive list of sources just doesn't add up to WP:N. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References consist of primary sources about a person with no credible claim of independent notability. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. A search on Google Books turns up only a few primary sources (10) and no secondary ones discussing him. KDS4444^Talk 04:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Juengling is a well established phonological researcher and has been referenced in a number of articles and books. -Kbabej (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Another book Juengling has authored has been added, another book that has used him as a resource has been added, and the heading has been rewritten. Please review. -kbabej (talk) 11:47 14 February 2014 (UTC).
• Keep. The "In Literature" section refers to several publications that make use of or reference to Juengling's work. I think we have to be careful not to introduce systematic bias against people who are notable within what might be considered a "niche" field of study. My recommendation is that this article be kept but cleaned up in the following ways: 1) put more specific emphasis on places in the phonological literature where Juengling and his work has been discussed and drawn upon by others in the field, 2) put more emphasis on positions, especially elected positions such as society chairs, that Juengling has held, and 3) clean up the language a little so that it is more neutral. As an example of this last point: "Juengling's language proficiency has enabled him to hold posts at...." sounds a little like it's selling the point, and could be simplified to "Juengling has held posts at...." If these changes are made, I believe this passes WP:ACADEMIC GregTStevens (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]