< 21 February	23 February >

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. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 15:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanaian people[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: The page was blanked and redirected to Demographics of Ghana by User:Medicineman84, who provided the following rationale via an edit summary:

This page is far more credible than what was previously there. The previous information is not backed by any of the sources and it is pure rubbish... You are free to go check to see if any of the claims are backed up.

— SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 22:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – The article could use a few more references, but is definitely a distinct topic from Demographics of Ghana and does not appear to violate the biographies of living persons policy. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 22:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I'm not seeing a reason to delete. Page-blanking and redirection are ordinary editing and contesting them is likewise a matter of ordinary editing. Andrew (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close No real reason to bring this to AfD. A content dispute should be logged via RFC on the talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 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. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calzona[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect My only previous input was to have put it up for PROD (subsequently declined) on notability grounds. It has been tagged for notability and reliable sources for more than a week with no content edits. The term "Calzona" is in use on Grey's Anatomy fan sites and possibly reliable sources such as Hollywood Reporter, but the article seems an unnecessary fork from Grey's Anatomy. At best a redirect with a one line explanation of the term at Grey's Anatomy. Meters (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Grey's has no wikilink to nor mention of it, so it's just fancruft OR. — Wylie pedia 15:07, 3 March 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) 10:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seigo Inoue[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - second tier career. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and not otherwise notable.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable MMA career and nothing to show he's done anything notable as a grappler.Mdtemp (talk) 20:26, 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 Delete. Non-admin closure/housekeeping. Page was deleted for being an unambiguous copyright violation. Mabalu (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Tran[edit]

I am also nominating the page on the pageant Kelly Tran won:

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

No indication of notability for either Kelly Tran or the pageant she won. Although Tran lived in the US for the past 20 years and spent her entire career there, we don't have a single independent source in English. There are no significant independent sources for the pageant either; the only source they give on their own "Media" page is an interview in the Apple Valley Review.

42.117.74.39 commented on the Vietnamese sources on Talk:Kelly Tran#Concealment; while it's difficult to judge the reliability of foreign-language sources, these indeed give off warning signs. Furthermore, the discussion on the Vietnamese talk page for Kelly Tran seems to support 42.117.74.39's concern.

There are further issues that could be solved via editing but are the icing on the cake. Almost the entire content on Kelly Tran was a copyright violation, being copied from Tran's personal website. And the article is heavily defended by User:AdorableTeddy who has ownership issues, routinely removes valid maintenance tags and seems to see the purpose of the article as promoting Ms. Tran. Huon (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be review by wikipedia administrator carefully since it seems like personal issue between user Huon and user User:AdorableTeddy, not sure if these two people had personal issue but I can see the tention between the two of them via talk page on Kelly Tran article. 151.151.16.13 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we should keep this article, this is just a personal matter between the two user Huon and AdorableTeddy. The article has some small issue that can be fix. 151.151.16.8 (talk) 23:33, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Law and Religion[edit]

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

This is too vague to be an article. It's basically advertising for a new subfield, which seems to have a very wide identity. I see no real documentation for the claims of the number of people involved, or the number of associations: I suspect the counts include everything where the phrase occurs, or even where the title might possibly appear to have some relation to the concepts

What does seem to be a good basis for an article is the journal Law and Religion, which is in JSTOR, and owned by over 850 libraries. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, new is relative, I guess, but 40 some years [1] is not that new for Wikipedia, and it certainly appears to be established in academia [2]. See also, Law and Economics, Law and Literature, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Noting my endorsement of Rjensen's comments below, particularly concerning the rather odd argument suggested in the nomination that the journal is notable but its subject matter is not, also, I completely reject the unsupported advertising claim. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's an established interdisciplinary field with over 1000 scholars from different disciplines who actually signed themselves up. It sponsors four scholarly journals (one of which is over 30 years old now). DGG says it is indeed a respectable journal but somehow he says its contents are not respectable enough for an article here. His claim of "No real documentation" missed footnote 5 where those numbers are stated by Professor John Witte, Jr.. Witte holds an endowed chair in law and is head of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion (CSLR) at Emory University School of Law. That is very prestigious indeed. The "advertising for a new subfield" allegation is poorly informed--the subfield is 40 years old and I wrote the article myself and I have no connection whatever with the field. Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a good start on an article about a inter-/multi-disciplinary field of research, providing adequate justification for its notability. More work to be done of course, but it isnt easy work. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article is kept, I think it might need to be renamed as "Law and Religion studies" or something similar. Title right now is vastly broader than what the article's subject is: a relatively small and recent (Emory's own page, which identifies itself as one of the first program in the United States on the topic, only suggests it was seriously studied after 1982 [3]) interdisciplinary field. Confusingly, there is already a page at Religious law. Also would like to see some citations for the claim above that "over 1000 scholars" are involved in the area. I know this isn't an argument for deleting the page, but there are many, many other legal interdisciplinary programs that are far better established and have longer histories that do not have WP pages (e.g., law and social work, law and philosophy, law and criminology, law and engineering, law and human development, etc etc.) So I do think there has to be some burden to show that this page meets WP:GNG. Right now, I'm not seeing anything that meets the strict requirements: none of the citations are independent coverage of the topic. I know this is a tricky area to deal with for notability, but still am not sure about the page at all. mikeman67 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, all the sources are independent. None of them is owned by the field of Law and Religion. Like Physics does not own any of the sources in its field, they don't become not independent because they concern themselves with the subject matter of the article (in fact, that's almost a requirement). Second, all those other topics, someone should get busy writing, but just because no one has, does not mean we delete this topic that someone has written (thankfully). Third, "Law and _______" (see, Law and Economics, all those things you say should be written about, etc.) seems pretty standard (Institute for Law and Religion), but that's a move discussion, not a deletion discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:44, 3 March 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) 19:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph Berkeley[edit]

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

I don't think this is notable as distinct from Telegraph Avenue. At the very least needs to be renamed to something like "Telegraph Avenue Business District" or something (though in 5 years living in Berkeley I never heard anyone refer to the district on the maps in the article as anything other than "South Side", with "Telegraph" specifically meaning Telegraph Avenue). I think the best option is to delete this article and, where there is distinct content it can be incorporated into the articles for Telegraph Avenue and Southside, Berkeley, California. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nominator's reasoning. "Telegraph Berkeley" is not a commonly used name for this area. A Google search finds only the area's Business Improvement District and this article. There's nothing here that wouldn't be better sited in the Telegraph Avenue article. The references provided all refer to the history or people of Telegraph Avenue; there is literally nothing about this business improvement district. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nominator. There's certainly no source for the name or even concept in the article itself, and the content is a hodge-podge of loose facts -- and a random map dredged up from God-knows-where (a "Metropolitan Transportation Commission report" is all it says) that doesn't even accurately cover the area claimed -- that belong in Telegraph Avenue and Southside, Berkeley, California. --Calton | Talk 09:23, 2 March 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. There does not seem to a be huge consensus to keep, but their arguments are better. An overlap does not dictate a merge. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hinduism[edit]

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

The article is a clone of Persecution of Hindus Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any stuff that is relevant and not repetitive with Persecution of Hindus. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Persecution of Hindus

-Stereotypes used by Anti-Hindus- is not well sourced. An opinion of a missionary(francis), has been over hyped, WP:SOAPBOXing.

-Historical instances of anti-Hindu views- has been taken from Persecution of Hindus.

-In the West- refers to asians as well, No comments on pat robertson, because he hate just everything. Tony Brown's article was forked. Brown, Denver Post apologized already, they don't base their identity being "Anti-hindu". Rajan Zed prayer protest has been forked to this article.

-In South Asia- Pakistan_Studies_curriculum#Curriculum_issues has been forked. Bangladesh' is also from Persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh. Dotbusters attacked all south asians. Malaysia' has articles such as Hinduism in Malaysia, Cow head protests, 2007 HINDRAF rally, HINDRAF, where more content can be added, if there is a need.

Yes, aim was to present "Anti-Hinduism", but there is not even a single official organization that is based on opposing Hinduism. If these named ones are opposing, they are clearly opposing multiple religions, for example Taliban are favorable to almost none. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just because Anti-hinduism is talked about in other articles is not a reason not to have an article about anti-hinduism itself. There is also no single official organization opposing Christianity, but wikipedia still has Anti-Christian sentiment

Keep Significant coverage in the multiple reliable sources (actually around 100) warrants a standalone article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone over here is saying that the topic is not notable. They are saying that the current content is duplication of another article. Do other delete voters support creation of new article on the "Anti-Hinduism" topic? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But there is also both Anti-Christian sentiment and Persecution of Christians. And both Islamophobia and Persecution of Muslims. Anti-hinduism and Persecution of Hindus is likewise not the same, the former is about intolerance, bias and prejudice, the second about physical persecution.

Delete This article is a complete duplication of persecution of Hindus and neutrality of this article is also disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talk • contribs) 15:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not a duplication, the content is different.

Leaning towards keeping both. From searching google scholar, WP:GOOG, both "anti-hinduism" and "persecution of hindus" get about 100 hits each, as Anupmehra mentioned. However, if you search for both terms at once, there is only one hit: the terms are not used together in the scholarly literature.

The top hits for anti-Hinduism span from 1948 thru 2013 (indicating a sporadic and/or venerable field of inquiry), and tend to be concerned with the topic inside India, with mention of hinduism/dalit/islam/atheism/dravidian/christianity/secularism. The publishers are economic and psychological.

By contrast, the top hits for persecution of Hindus span from 1994 to 2008 (indicating a bit heavier of a publication-breadth), and tend to mention neighbors of India (Pakistan/Bangladesh/Singapore/MiddleEast), with common mention of Islam only. The publishers are primarily human-rights-related.

Besides the indications from google-scholar, that these are separate topics, we also have WP:COMMONSENSE. The contents of Anti-Hinduism article in the west covers spoken remarks (by politicians, media personalities, protestors, and similar). By contrast, the contents of Persecution of Hindus covers physical violence (Dotbusters and the Bonn attack... the protest-negation in Italy feels out of place). If both are kept, suggest separating the verbal/political attacks from the physical/conquest attacks. If only one is kept, suggest renaming it Attacks on Hinduism#Physical and Attacks on Hinduism#Verbal. HTH.

There is a lot of anti-Hinduism shown in the editorial comments. There is need to keep this article. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anti-hinduism and Persecution of Hindus are not the same, the former is about intolerance, bias and prejudice, the second about physical persecution.Shyamsunder (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agreee with Shyamsunder. Can someone also please tell me where to insert the incidents of attacks on temples (my edits are being repeatedly reverted - please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Pakistan&diff=596079157&oldid=596037343)?—Khabboos (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shyamsunder -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 23:54, 6 March 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 W. Eugene Smith. slakr^\ talk / 03:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Loft Project[edit]

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

This is a minor project cataloguing the works of one jazz musician. The articles seems very promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*WT:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the above rationale - it isn't accurate to say "one jazz musician": it is an archive of one person's recordings of many jazz musicians. Which leaves the question of whether the archive project is sufficiently notable. AllyD (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I have added references from several bylined articles in a variety of sources. My only reluctance with a strong "keep" opinion is that they are all from around the same time, effectively coinciding with publication and exhibition, which may be open to argument that they are transient notice rather than evidence of lasting notability. AllyD (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with W. Eugene Smith: it's an archive devoted to preserving the work of Smith, and there's no reason it can't be discussed in Smith's article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:50, 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. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Stephenson (writer)[edit]

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

Sam Stephenson seems to be a minor writer. The sources seem to just be interviews with him. The fact that article says he will complete the manuscript in 2011 indicates that if he did, no one took much notice of that. This article seems to more say he might become notable in the future than that he is now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also nominated the related article Jazz Loft Project for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG. Some links about Stephenson and his projects.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Brief praise.[11] Just because his Eugene Smith bio hasn't seen the light of day is no reason for deletion: he's done other things which don't always fit the criteria of "author", "academic", etc, which is why we have GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. -- GreenC 01:46, 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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 23:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul pignataro[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BIO... Sources are not reliable JMHamo (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern, I added the book publisher references. Is this what has been contested? I'm happy to provide any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwizard57685 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject should be presumed notable in lieu of sources. Sources offered are either clearly WP:PRIMARY or trivial mentions. Msnicki (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This author is notable in the investment banking community. His books and teachings are utilized throughout college campuses, including mine. Worldcat shows 78 libraries that carry just the first of six books listed in my initial search. I'm trying to add more credible sources in the same vein as as Aswath Damodaran to help populate the much needed finance and investment banking section of Wikipedia and believe this author's contributions should be noted along with the others I have posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwizard57685 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is determined by what third party sources say about someone. Being a writer, or founding a school, is not reason enough to have a Wikipedia article. Only if others with no connection to him, who are fully independent of him, have said things about him (positive or negative) is it a sign of notability. The WSJ Journal article is not bad since it's by an independent journalist with no links to him, but not enough on its own. Best to have book reviews, or magazine or newspaper articles about him, etc.. -- GreenC 01:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC - I believe I have posted several third party sources. Note the SeekingAplha book reviews. There are more. I'm hoping others will contribute besides me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwizard57685 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WikiWizard, the onus is on you to provide reliable sources, not "others". JMHamo (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JMHamo is this not a collaborative effort? I though that was the point in this open discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwizard57685 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 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.

Paul T T Easter[edit]

The result of this discussion was 'Delete'. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Police Stables[edit]

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

On a local heritage list. I don;t think we include automatically buildings that are on only local or state lists, only national ones. I see nothing particualrly distinctive about this to make an exception. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newcastle Gaol Museum. While probably not notable in its own right, it seems it is part of this museum, so any useful content can be moved there. Bob talk 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now merged this to the gaol article. Bob talk 20:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable in its own right sourcing is in paper records includes being a site related to the activities of Moondyne Joe, also note this is part of a GLAM project issues are being addressed within that process. Gnan garra 02:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Much as I love the work being done by this project and tend to err on the side of inclusion, this building is only registered at a local council level, and I'm unconvinced that every building on a municipal historic buildings register is notable for a Wikipedia article. I feel like there needs to be some broader discussion about what recognition is sufficient for Wikipedia notability, but preferably before going about deleting work already done. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bob and commonsense as there is no point in a standalone article when there is not that much to say about the building.--Charles (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newcastle Gaol Museum is the sensible thing to do. Local heritage listing means little in Australia, and is not establishing notability. --ELEKHH^T 03:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- could please explain how you come to the conclusion that local heritage listing means little in Australia thats a rather big generalised statement to be throwing around without supporting evidence. Gnangarra 03:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are a colossal number of buildings on local heritage registers in Australia, many of which I'm entirely unconvinced are notable for Wikipedia articles. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I certainly haven't been so far. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that this is expressly part of the gaol complex, which is on the Western Australia State Heritage Register,[12] so it isn't just locally listed. That doesn't, of course, mean it wouldn't be better as a redirect to Newcastle Gaol Museum. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Agree that it does not change the conclusion. --ELEKHH^T 22:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this building is not only listed on the local (Shire of Toodyay) heritage inventory but it is also listed on the State Heritage Register ("Entry in the Register is reserved for places of State cultural heritage significance and is the highest recognition afforded at the State level") and classified by the National Trust.Dan arndt (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not? The whole complex is, but the whole complex isn't being debated - the separate notability of this small component is, and it's only separately listed at a local level. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of a GLAM project as Gnangarra notes above, the complex has notability beyond the local area, and issues are in the process of being addressed. If they can't be, the project organisers will undoubtedly merge and redirect as appropriate. This AfD is rather premature. Orderinchaos 17:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the above discussion at all (given that all your points have been already eloquently addressed: i.e. GLAM is not a criteria for AfD, complex notability does not confer notability to each structure separately, etc...)? --ELEKHH^T 02:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - your unwillingness to express any good faith in an ongoing GLAM projects ability to address issues, especially in light of the fact that its being run by experienced editors, supported by a chapter and clearly has a plan in place to address sourcing that is now only a week away is disheartening in the least. To have you comment every time a person that supports keeping the article expresses their opinion really enforces the misconception to new editors about Wikipedia. Your point has been made you think it should be merged because its part of a complex despite being a heritage registered building in its own right repeating that every time some disagrees with your opinion is unnecessary. Gnangarra 02:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Take it easy. No need for personal attacks and misrepresenting my edits, that would hardly inspire new editors. Please don't be discouraged by the above, as nobody was proposing the removal of any notable information. --ELEKHH^T 03:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - sorry it wasnt a personal attack, nor am I being discouraged by this discussion I was just trying to point out the normal etiquette when participating in AfDs is that you dont need to respond to every opinion expressed that disagrees with you. By all means if you have something new to contribute to the discussion then do so. Gnan garra 03:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm unclear as to why being part of a GLAM project is supposed to affect notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        based on information to hand at least one of the sources is book published before ISBN were used which is no longer in publication, combined with anecdotal evidence(further publications on the subject available) there is sufficient reason to believe this building is notable. The article was created within the wikitown project by a new user based on guidance from experienced editors with the knowledge that followup activities would be needed to address content development and that the followup wont occur within the timeframe of an afd, therefore some WP:AGF wouldnt go astray. Gnan garra 12:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a fair argument, in which case I vote keep. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an article relative to Toodyay history, and contrary to assertions otherwise I would consider toodyay articles have sufficient developable content regardless of when they are 'captured' for debates such as these, as the further information to develop exists, and simply has not been exploited sufficiently to date. satusuro 12:48, 1 March 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) 19:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Scott (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Only one valid target, the previous other target was deleted in part due to BLP violations, and a third article with no links here and no danger of confusion has been added seemingly to keep this alive. The BLP issues with the now-deleted article alone seem to suggest we no longer need this. See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melissa_Scott (pastor) Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this can be handled by a hatnote instead of a disambiguation page, but a substantial number of people who type in Melissa Scott are still going to be looking for Melissa Scott (pastor), and will need to be redirected to Gene Scott. Page view stats show that Melissa Scott (pastor) gets many more page views than Melissa Scott (writer): in the last 90 days it was 8718 vs. 1757; in October 2013 it was 2295 vs. 473. I have no opinion about Melissa Scott-Hayward. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Clarified. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and hatnote as usual in such cases. What does the number of hits for the pastor's husband have to do with anything? There's only one standalone article about a Melissa Scott. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, those numbers refer to hits for Melissa Scott (pastor) (not Gene Scott). --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've added the necessary hatnote to Melissa Scott. On the principle of least astonishment I've linked explicitly to the Gene Scott article rather than use the redirect link which might puzzle readers if they think they're being directed from the hatnote to an article about the pastor herself and find they're on his article instead. PamD 14:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disambiguation pages are not just about disambiguating people who have their own articles. This has four valid entries (including see alsos). Nothing to be gained from deletion, potentially WP:USEFUL to readers. As for why do the pageview hits mean anything, it means WP users are looking for information on her, thus we should make it easy for them. Boleyn (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the "valid entries," one is an article of an author, one is a deleted article, one is a redlinked entry with a hyphenated last name (making searching for her there unlikely), and one is a bluelinked entry with a hyphenated last name (making searching for her there unlikely). The idea that there are four valid entries does not appear to be true. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's incorrect. Both see alsos are blue links (articles) and there's every chance a reader would type in 'Melissa Scott' for Melissa Scott-Hayward or Melissa Scott-Miller - we're trying to make it as easy as we can for articles to be found. Both belong in see also section, both valid entries. To say one links to a deleted article is misleading - it leads to an article where information on Melissa Scott (pastor) can be found - clearly meets MOS:DABMENTION (her name is mentioned in the article 12 times). She doesn't meet the guidelines for an individual article but she meets the guidelines for a disambiguation entry. What could possibly be gained by deleting this? Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The artist was a redlink at the time of my comment. I don't agree that these are likely targets for the hyphenated articles, and a proper hatnote is on the writer's page. That seems to be more than enough. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The artist's article was not a redlink - check the time and date of creation. It may have been an error with the way it presented on your screen. You're still igonring both MOS:DABMENTION and WP:USEFUL. I haven't seen any arguments for deletion as the article stands, that go beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a fifth entry which meets MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough people using this name that having a disambiguation page is very helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 28 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. Will also perform page move on Alejandra Bravo (biochemist) as noted by Bearcat. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandra Bravo (community activist)[edit]

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

Wikipedia's longstanding consensus is that merely being a candidate for office — especially at the municipal level, but not generally at higher levels of government either — is not a sufficient claim of notability to get a person past WP:POLITICIAN, and this article as written does not make any credible claim that she's established enough non-local notability to get past a different notability guideline instead. The article, further, cites only one non-WP:PRIMARYSOURCE; the other one is her "our personalities" bio on the webpage of a television station she's worked for, which is therefore not an independent source that properly establishes notability. I like her, I want her to win the election, and she'll certainly qualify for an article if she does win — but she doesn't qualify for an article yet under our current inclusion rules. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick followup comment to note that the creator moved an existing article about a different Alejandra Bravo in order to facilitate turning the main title into a dab page — so if this does get deleted, the dab page will also have to be deleted and the other person moved back to her original title. If and when this Alejandra Bravo wins election to a notable office, then we can deal with any new disambiguation issues that arise. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few candidates get notability from running, this is clearly not an exception to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John. Steam5 (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - longstanding consensus per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:POLITICIAN holds that running for office once or twice does not make one notable. If this subject truly is a community activist, there should be good sources in there to prove general notability. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 4 March 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) 19:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Coffey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a WP:BLP but contains no reliable sources. Could not locate reliable sources. There are some newspaper sources which credulously provide a platform for Coffrey on him being a "psychic" but they merely repeat all he says with no criticial analysis. There is none of the coverage required by WP:FRINGE#Notability: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Second Quantization (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm no fan of Coffey but he is a notable psychic and nothing has changed since the last two AfDs. Page improvements and more RSes may be appropriate. But deletion is not. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is one of locating those RS. How can we improve the page if you have not shown the sources from which we can do so? Second Quantization (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Second Quantization (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notwithstanding the RSes from the previous AfD there's also the Skeptic.com information I gave you elsewhere and I think back-issues of Skeptic Magazine have additional mentions of Coffey. This is definitely a case of improve rather than delete. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coffey's YouTube comments against bullying and gaybashing are highly laudable, but he isn't notable for those, so having 90% of his bio and a big blockquote devoted to it is WP:OR and way WP:UNDUE. Per Second Quantization, we need sources that are "independent of their promulgators and popularizers" such as Nickell and perhaps the Miami Herald feature that's buried behind paywalls. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I've stated before, this article meets Wikipedia:Notability (people), just a short search finds several reliable sources that show Coffey "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". I'm sure there are plenty more out there.

Winnipeg Free Press - Rare Medium
Gwinnett Daily Post - Medium to host psychic reading at Coolray Field
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal - Paranormal State to bring ghost hunting to Texas Tech
Star Gazette - Psychic says he's `flying sky-high' over `Airline' appearance
Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Lilburn psychic featured on A&E series 'Paranormal' and 'God-given talent'is channeled in mysterious ways
Chip Coffey of A&E’s ‘PSYCHIC KIDS’ and ‘PARANORMAL STATE’ Joins Blanc Biehn Productions ‘THE NIGHT VISITOR 2: HEATHER’S STORY "Business Wire Feb 11, 2014

Further, the amount of content for a subject that meets WP:N, WP:V, and the other content policies does not factor into whether or not an article should exist - it would only apply if there were very little or no verifiable information on the subject in sources anywhere outside of Wikipedia (e.g. external sources with his name only, or other very limited sources of that nature); that's why we have Wikipedia:Stub. With the sources above, the article can definitely be expanded, and I'd begun doing so from those sources. Clearly, lack of content - or potential content - is not a concern. And remember, this is a WP:BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 21:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've just re-added the same credulous claims back into the article despite WP:FRINGE. Second Quantization (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand on the sources above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expand on the sources? What does that mean? Second Quantization (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Just because he's a psychic doesn't mean he's not notable. After all, there are tons of articles on these folks, e.g. (([[Template::Spiritualism and spiritism|:Spiritualism and spiritism]])) This isn't an article about science, it's a biography about an interesting person. Montanabw^(talk) 00:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are still following me I see [13]. Second Quantization (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about; I found this post when I was at the Fringe theories noticeboard per Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Speciesism.3F. What does IR Wolfie had to do with any of this? Montanabw^(talk) 20:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but a weak Keep. This keeps coming up and people keep saying they are going to find the sources, but the page remains less than a stub. I say give us a deadline to improve or remove and maybe that will light a fire under someone who really cares to get it done. If it is deleted it isn't as if we can't someday write another one, but done correctly.Sgerbic (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources above are the same credulous sources as the previous AfDs. Where are the critical sources I keep hearing about but noone produces. Second Quantization (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC, upon a source review of those posted above by User:Dreadstar (not including the businesswire pr source). Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 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. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Giles (philosopher)[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for WP:Academic - maximum cites on Scholar seem to be 24. The theory for which he is supposedly famous, Giles' theory of sexual desire, gets no Scholar hits whatsoever; I've nominated that also for deletion, discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giles' theory of sexual desire. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep His best-known book has got some reviews[14][15][16][17] although not in well-known publications. His webpage lists several reviews of his work, which seem legit, even if the publications are hardly the biggest academic names.[18]. Shouldn't have a separate article on his theory of sexual desire, which I assume is just the content of his books, and isn't a theory that's been developed by other people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Editors might also note this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giles' theory of sexual desire. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep The reviews found by Colapeninsula are in respectable journals and go some way to meeting WP:AUTHOR. --Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AUTHOR. -- GreenC 01:25, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the French throne (Bonapartist)[edit]

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

Unsourced. DrKiernan (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks any references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes its unsourced and needs work but there will be sources out there if people look for them. The succession rules can be cited to the constitution for example.[19] - dwc lr (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A source from 1804 can never be used to claim that people alive today "claim the title of emperor and want to reestablish the monarchy instead of the republic as a form of government". DrKiernan (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article leads to a substantial number of bluelinked articles about the series of Bonapartist pretenders. I've looked at some of those articles and they seem to have plenty of sources. It seems to me that, if nothing else, this article provides necessary organization for those. Someone trying to find the right pretender would be rather adrift without some kind of article like this one that organizes all those claimants in dynastic order. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list of members at House of Bonaparte. This isn't about whether there should be a list somewhere; it's about this article. DrKiernan (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being unsourced is not reason for deletion. There's a lot of books and articles on the subject, such as:

Joseph Valynseele, Le sang des Bonaparte, 1954
Laetitia de Witt, Le prince Victor Napoléon, Fayard, 2007
F. Billaut, « Guerre de succession chez les Napoléon », Point de Vue, 16 December 1997
Frédéric Bluche, Le bonapartisme, Paris, PUF, 1980

The Valynseele book seems to be the standard history of the Bonapartes. A merge might be possible but I'll leave someone else to propose and carry that out.--Colapeninsula (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is notable per above. Add the sources listed, and the article will be fine.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:17, 28 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 James Giles (philosopher). slakr^\ talk / 23:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giles' theory of sexual desire[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable theory - 0 hits on Google Scholar. With one exception, all sources in the article are by Giles himself. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to James Giles (philosopher). His work on sexual desire has got some reviews[20][21][22][23], but they can easily be treated in the article on Giles. Ideally someone with access to the various journals could add a criticism section. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. An article on one book requires much more eminence than found here. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This hypothesis (hardly a "theory" yet) has no independent notability at this point. Should the article on James Giles (philosopher) be kept, a few lines on this hypothesis could be merged there. --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Colapeninsula. The article on Giles was kept, so this material could appropriately be merged there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:39, 4 March 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) 03:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3D Blindness[edit]

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

There is no clear topic here. The citations which available online, including Hinton's 1979 article, do not use the term 3D Blindness, and I cannot find anything else that does. PROD was already declined by the article's creator, who appears to be one of two presenters of a one-day session at SIGGRAPH 2001 ([24]), presumably including Hinton's tests as described in the Wikipedia page. – Fayenatic London 15:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have had some sympathy for an article about how some people do not have good binocular vision and cannot appreciate 3d TV and other 3D visual presentations, but this article is about some tests Hinton devised which find that 96 percent of the population is 3D blind. Seems silly as well as being non-notable. Edison (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough RS coverage for GNG. I found no mentions in books, and just a couple articles on CAD (1 2) that mentioned this in passing. this web page suggests the term originated with a Bob Parsblow in 1982; he's an author of the cited 2001 siggraph reference. I agree with Edison that the naming is silly, which of course is not a reason for deletion, but it is also non-notable, at least as named. The difficulty humans have visualizing things in 3d is certainly noted in literature, but it's more commonly referred to as difficulty visualizing things in 3D, not "3D blindness". The term "3d blindness" turns up in quite a few sources in reference to an inability to see things in 3D, as with a visual impairment inhibiting stereoscopic vision, but that's different than this article's topic. Agyle (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources for this meaning of 3D blindness. Also, though I know it's not our place to criticize research, it's not at all clear that people use "3D vision" to answer the questions, rather than logic. I know I use logic. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:53, 1 March 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 Geek. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tech geeks[edit]

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

Intentional use of Wikipedia to mock and disparage a particular type of person, while offering no substantive, objective, accurate definition of its topic. See author's edit summaries for corroboration of intent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into geek. Both pages need lots of work but the topic is quite notable as entire books are written about it such as The Geek Gap; The Geek Manifesto; The Geek Handbook; &c. Andrew (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would you merge? The arbitrary definition given up front, the original research, the insults, or the gross generalizations? Also, the discussion here isn't about whether there should be a Geek article, but that's the article that your three examples appear to support. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is a new one but people were trying to delete it within 11 minutes. Such hostility naturally has a chilling effect on article development and so is contrary to our policies such as WP:BITE and WP:IMPERFECT. The issue here is to determine whether to use the delete function, not to dwell upon the first draft which can and has been edited. One effect of the delete function is to make the title a red link. This does not seem appropriate here because "tech geek" is a common term for the topic and so should be a blue link, as a useful term for searching and linking. Andrew (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to believe that someone who set out on purpose to write a disparaging article was going to magically change his mind and turn it into a serious one if only given a few hours or days to do so, and to show great concern for that person's tender feelings. But your suggested approach amounts to saying that every time we come upon content that must not be allowed to remain, we are suddenly smitten with the obligation to create a legitimate article that suits the title, whether or not we have any inclination to do so, whether or not we happen to know or care anything about that topic; because if we don't, then the article will remain as is, with its insults and foolishness, etc. Or else we can blank the article, but we aren't allowed to leave an article with a title and no content.

If you happen to have felt moved to replace the content of the article, that's lovely. More power to you. Can I just assume, every time I see such an article, that you or someone with similar resolve will happen by in the next few minutes to save it? I'm not going to count on it, and this is why we have a deletion policy.

By the way, I have fixed many articles. Articles with content of value and posted with sincere intent. This one was outside the scope of WP:BITE and WP:IMPERFECT. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Geek or delete. There's nothing to merge, and there's no need for a fork. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Geek, that article already refers to technology in relation to geeks. No references, the external links aren't about tech geeks, it makes disparaging statements without references. SchreiberBike talk 04:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Geek for now with Merge any reliable sources. Well, ideally we are supposed to keep an open mind and look for sources, personal opinions amount to bias. Tech geek can be used as a pejorative, satire or accolade depending on it's context, so the article gets some of that right but seems to favor the pejorative image. The article creator is basically a SPA who has created two articles the other one Google Bus which is an "anti-geek" topic, though one clearly notable. Unsurprisingly there are thousands if not probably 10s of thousands of reliable sources that use "tech geek" without reflection about the term itself. So this is difficult to wade through so many sources looking for a sociological treatment of the archetype. I'm sure it's possible though, I've found sources for other more difficult archetypes which took weeks of work. Curiously the very first Google hit when doing the search "tech geek" sociology is about Wikipedia and its supposed tech geek roots causing gender bias against women. Controversial stuff on this topic. Until we have someone who can make a fair and honest attempt to research, which doesn't look trivial, I don't see how it could be fairly represented. But if someone does, without an agenda, I will change my position and maybe help out. -- GreenC 16:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete per discussion above. Rinkle gorge (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Geek. Its certainly a plausible search term, thus a redirect would be a lot more useful than flat out deletion, but at this point is a unnecessary fork. Just as a side comment, I find it kind of ridiculous that the nominator was actually being chided for PRODing an obvious WP:ATTACK page "within 11 minutes". I'm fairly certain its common Wikipedia practice to have unsourced, disparaging material removed ASAP, rather than letting it sit there and hope that eventually someone comes around to change it, just because the article title might have actual use. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:32, 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 delete. Nothing to really merge; is a directory entry otherwise. slakr^\ talk / 00:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Tanzania, Ottawa[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. This article merely confirms embassy's existence. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. Pburka (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and per Pburka: there's no reason to think that this is a notable embassy. Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Ho[edit]

File:Felix with Eclipse van de Duvetorre IPO1.JPG

These pictures were uploaded by the same editor who created the article

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

Dog trainer who has competed successfully in some non-notable national and international dog training competitions. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources, therefore fails WP:GNG. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, I haven't been able to find any sources; refs are just links to competition results. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Ho I find is this a scientist at Uppsala University. What I think is problematic is the talk page history. It looks like this article was only edited by a three or four accounts, made for this purpose. Can be the same person using several accounts. This could also be written by the same guy it is about. H(w)o knows? Hafspajen (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - References 12 - 20 show magazine and newspapers articles about Ho in Australia, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, and Malaysia in English, Dutch, and Chinese. References 21 - 23 show internet articles written about Ho in Chinese. The page about Ho has also existed for several years in Wikipedia. talk Darren — Darren Yang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - The national and international dog training competitions Ho has competed in are not "non-notable". FCI has its own Wikipedia page and is one of the most prestigious international organizations for purebred dogs. KMSH, that organizes the Belgian National Selection Trials is a well recognized association in Europe. Schutzhund, the sport Ho competes in, also appears in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castor Lang (talk • contribs) 21:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Castor Lang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

FCI may be notable, but competitions it organises are not. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge is correct - FCI itself is indeed notable; however, thousands of events come under the FCI umbrella as it lists events for most Kennel Clubs worldwide in every major canine discipline. The vast majority of these events would not be considered notable. Also, simply competing in an event is not indicative of a competitors notability. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - Mr. Ho is well known in the dog training world. I have found more references online in several languages about the man:

~~- http://www.ovguide.com/felix-ho-9202a8c04000641f80000000045fc5cd~~

~~- http://www.deboterham.be/De_Boterham/Sport/Artikelen/2011/3/9_Hondentraining_met_Felix_Ho.html~~

~~- http://www.scmp.com/topics/ho~~

~~- http://www.scmp.com/article/723987/canine-trainers-dogged-devotion~~

~~- http://zoologists.informationmart.net/Felix_Ho/itemdetail~~

~~- http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_92bd3e320101h66t.html~~

~~- http://tieba.baidu.com/p/2886731137~~

~~- http://baike.baidu.com/link?url=DnnHca58ql4rzXsUlMZdAVK0TqffNlWZHJnO-iA_x7D19nOonIgigYJZpqGG5xPMtR880kR-crf86Oa9Od8zG_~~

~~- http://chinapet.net/bbs/viewtopic.php?p=22850820&bbsdata=old~~

~~JS — Jack solomon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~

The last of those links is to a forum, therefore not a reliable source. The two Baidu links are to a wiki - not a reliable source. I see little reason to think that "informationmart.net" is a reliable source either. The 2011 article in German might be. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sina.com is a blog, so also not a reliable source. Looking at the "references" that have been added to the article (some of which are likely to be deleted for copyright infringements as they are photographs of magazines) but #2–11 are lists of results; #17 & 18 look like one article written by Ho as it bears an icon 'Felix's column'; and #21–23 are forums. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mentions online as a participant in competitions related to Schutzhund but does not have the significant coverage we look for in our general notability guidelines. EricSerge (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Some of the references in this page and in the article are from newspapers and magazines. The sources are independent and neutral, making the article worthy to stay on Wikipedia.

CS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castor Lang (talk • contribs) 17:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(struck duplicate !vote) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Castor Lang. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC) - I've now struck several sockpuppet !votes based on the results of the SPI. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Stay~~ - There are sufficient independent and reliable references in several languages to show the authenticity of the person and the prestige of the events he has competed in. The page has also existed for a long time without any problem. It fits the criteria of Wikipedia and should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Four Void (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Conflict of interest You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends. If you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article. You should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics. This includes people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person (such as being an employee, or having family ties or some other relationship), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection. Hafspajen (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retain~~ - There is no prove the editors of the page have direct contact with Ho and there is no prove that Ho himself has edited the page. There are however solid and trustworthy references proving Ho's history and achievement in his sport. The competitions he has participated in might seem non-notable to people out of the dog world, but can all be looked up online and are prestigious events. Freerooster — Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sagaciousphil and User:Hafspajen, who both !voted Delete above, both seem rather knowledgeable about dogs judging by their Wikipedia contributions, so no it's not a question of being "people out of the dog world". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Demiurge - it looks as if the check user has now also been completed at the SPI. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sock puppets and a badly written article haven't helped with this AfD. Nor did the copyvios, which are now deleted. I know quite a few people in the dog agility world in the UK, and I suspect at least one of them deserves their own article. We have no guidelines for dog trainers/handlers, so we go by WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") and I'd argue WP:SPORTCRIT for dog agility. He's won no world champtionships. This article[25] might count as one source towards GNG. Unfortunately the deleted stuff had no details we can check. I'm just not sure. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; appears to fail the general notability guideline. bobrayner (talk) 00:13, 5 March 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:GNG / WP:V slakr^\ talk / 03:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statsmodels[edit]

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

Notability not established. The main source, a SciPy conference paper, has been cited only three times according to GScholar. The other source is the topic's website. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

statsmodels is used in industry and research without always citing it, for example

Dabdoub, S. M., A. A. Tsigarida, and P. S. Kumar. 2013. “Patient-Specific Analysis of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Microbiomes.” Journal of Dental Research 92 (12 suppl): 168S–175S. doi:10.1177/0022034513504950. Quote:"Single and multiple comparisons of distributions were carried out with the statistical facilities provided by JMP (SAS Institute Inc.), as well as the Python libraries SciPy, pandas, and statsmodels." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.225.218 (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That paper only has one citation. We need something better to satisfy WP:NSOFT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

statsmodels is a established tool used by many researchers, including Nobel Prize winners. Many researchers use it without giving it proper credit in their publications. It is part of the Enthought distribution package for scientists: [26]. Nobel Prize Laureate Prof. Thomas Sargent mentions it in his website as one of the most useful Python modules: [27]. It is part of the open source movement, and it would be a mistake for Wikipedia to remove this article. Matplotlib (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That webpage only mentions statsmodels once, in a list, and WP:NSOFT clearly states that "Inclusion of software in lists of similar software generally does not count as deep coverage" and is not sufficient to establish notability. The rest of your argument is irrelevant, I'm afraid. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. There are well over 10,000 python modules, and he is only citing 4 modules. Clearly, it is a great endorsement by one of the most relevant academics of our time. Econometricians reading this discussion would be rolling their eyes. Matplotlib (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with the significance of this citation. Cerberus (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your information: I started to collect a list of references that mention or use statsmodels. Many of those do not cite the conference paper. https://github.com/statsmodels/statsmodels/wiki/Users-and-Citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josefpktd (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that might be useful. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I collected the list from what I found with Google Scholar. There are two kinds of articles, those that use parts of statsmodels and usually mention the statsmodels homepage in brackets or a footnote. The second kind mentions statsmodels for the python eco-system and in some cases for further analysis. I will add more comments about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josefpktd (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found another one that was not on Google Scholar: they mention using Python and R in the main article, but statsmodels is only cited in the Supplementary Material which is not indexed by Google Scholar, as far as I can see. http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/14/1825.full?sid=46bb91f0-38f6-493c-a38c-c202b0dbfc34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josefpktd (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

statsmodels is just a traditional statistics and econometrics package written in Python with less coverage than R or Stata but covers most of the commonly used models and hypothesis tests (together with scipy.stats.) There is no hype associated with it. For a bit of background see http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/47913/pandas-statsmodel-scikits-learn/48578#48578

The number of articles that use or mention statsmodels shows that statsmodels has found acceptance in the research communities of various fields. Of course the citation or usage count is much smaller than the one of long established packages like R or Stata. We, statsmodels developers, never emphasized getting citations. As pointed out on our mailing list, we don't even have the conference article citation displayed prominently on the documentation website. Statsmodels is also used in a few university courses for using python in the field, but I don't have a list of those.

Eco-system: Referring to "It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown" WP:NSOFT.
I think what Matplotlib pointed out in the comment above is important. statsmodels is an established and important part for the python in science and python for data analysis ecosystems. Numpy, scipy, pandas, scikit-learn, statsmodels, pymc, and some others, are the general purpose packages, which are complemented by field or application specific packages. So, often lists for recommended packages will include statsmodels and the other main packages. statsmodels has participated in each of the last five years in the Google Summer of Code under the umbrella of the Python Software Foundation, the first year or two as a scipy project.
Statsmodels is included in all science oriented python distributions, but most of the "spreading the word" goes through blogs and mailing lists.
One example as illustration: http://www.automatedtrader.net/articles/software-review/144328/utopian-quantopian reviews an open source package in finance written by a startup. (Automated Trader Magazine Issue 30 Q3 2013) It mentions statsmodels next to scipy, and then points out a limitation of statsmodels in the next paragraph.

Statsmodels is treated as a tool library, which is necessary but does not require special emphasis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josefpktd (talk • contribs) 18:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I tried to add statsmodels to Wikipedia in 2011, see User:Josefpktd/Statsmodels for my draft. At the time I did not try to show notability because, although we were already well established in the numerical python community, we did not have a wider user base yet. After an additional two and a half years of growth, I think statsmodels is widespread and known well enough to justify "notability" for Wikipedia. Also note that this time it is not a statsmodels developer that started the Wikipedia page.Josefpktd (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you consider a "reliable source" for significance of open source software. So here are three more examples http://work.thaslwanter.at/Stats/html/index.html A online "book" or set of notes written for a university course in Austria by a user of python. First part is statistics with scipy.stats, last part is with statsmodels. And here are two blog post written by data analysts working out the examples of statistics/machine learning books in python, http://slendermeans.org/pages/will-it-python.html and http://www.datarobot.com/blog/statistical-learning-in-python/ . The first, statistics oriented part uses statsmodels the second, machine learning oriented part uses scikit-learn.Josefpktd (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are usually not accepted per WP:SPS, unless they're company blogs or the blog of a major figure in industry, academia or the OSS world. Same goes for StackExchange and similar crowdsourced Q&A websites. I've cited automatedtrader.net. To be honest, I'm convinced that statsmodels is a relatively major library; the question is whether an encyclopedic article can be written about it (but I'm moving towards a "yes" on that question). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related to WP:SPS As far as I understand this would refer to publication like blogs written, in the case of software, by the developers or developing company. I referenced the three blogs (or one lecture notes and two blog) to **illustrate** the significance of statsmodels for open source statistical analysis. Those were written by users that are not directly involved in statsmodels. However, since it's open source, the first author contacted the mailing list when he was writing his course notes. The second improved a function in statsmodels when he found during his blog writing that our previous version was slow. I only found the last blog while searching now for establishing notability. I emphasized "illustrate" because statsmodels doing traditional statistics and econometrics is not newsworthy or hyped enough to make it into the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, and most of the examples and comments on statsmodels are on blogs.Josefpktd (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, R did make it to the NYT. But coming back to SPS, it makes the exception that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." To me, that means that Thomas Sargent's website is an acceptable source, but J. Random User's blog is not, regardless of whether they're involved with statsmodels. The reason for SPS, as I've always understood it, is that it's too easy to create a blog, post what you want on Wikipedia on the blog, then cite it — not so much to stop promotional editing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "Self-" in SPS refers to the subject of the Wikipedia page, and we (self) didn't write those blogs so we can get into Wikipedia. (Aside: R made it into the NYT after 16 years plus another 17 years of S as background. I hope statsmodels makes it sooner. :) I know that many of our sources are not strictly defined as "reliable sources". I'm not sure what "relatively informal sources for free and open source software" means. However, what I tried to show with the wide range of sources is that statsmodels has been "noted" by academic researches, data analysts and companies, so it should be "notable" enough for Wikipedia in my opinion.Josefpktd (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QVVERTYVS is there anything missing that would help to convince you. Or should we wait another year, and another 10 or 30 publications that use statsmodels and until Tom Sargent includes some statsmodels examples in his quant-econ site.Josefpktd (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I usually pay more attention to content in blogs than origin. I just saw that the London School of Economics "syndicated" an article on the use of python for statistical analysis, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/02/24/on-the-future-of-statistical-languages/ (Note it contains the disclaimer that it's not an official position) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josefpktd (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding one more example of blogs. There are several companies and startups that use or start to use Python for data analysis. I know of a few but do not have any overview who is using statsmodels as one of the backend tools. cbinsights looks like a analytics company that has never been in contact with statsmodels development, as far as I know: http://www.cbinsights.com/team-blog/python-tools-machine-learning/Josefpktd (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for completeness, a WP:SPS: This is my blog http://jpktd.blogspot.ca/ where I add on and off some explanations or descriptions of statistics that is under development. Except for the release announcement, it is mostly technical and "boring" statistics. I am one of the two main developers and maintainers of statsmodels. http://www.ohloh.net/p/statsmodels/contributors?query=&sort=commits_12_mo Josefpktd (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related to adding a page on statsmodels. I'm a frequent user of statistics pages on Wikipedia, and if statsmodels has its own page, then it will be easier to add it to statistics pages that have an implementation section. For example, searching Wikipedia "~statsmodels" shows several pages where Wikipedia contributors have added statsmodels for the Python implementation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josefpktd (talk • contribs) 12:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that maybe I misunderstood something here: My comments and links on this "Articles for deletion/Statsmodels" page are for establishing notability for the Wikipedia process of including a new page. I did not provide the links with the intention that they are included on the actual Wikipedia page itself, so I did not restrict myself to sources that are acceptable under the Wikipedia editorial policy.Josefpktd (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no difference. A source that cannot be cited cannot establish notability either; in both cases they need to pass the criteria in WP:RS, and for establishing notability the sources need to additionally provide significant coverage. I've cited a few of the suggested sources in the article because I'm willing to help you and I feel statsmodels could deserve its article; I hope other editors can get involved to see if they find the current sources good enough.

I'm changing my opinion to neutral because of the additional sources. Third-party coverage of statsmodels is on the verge of significant; the question is if the slack given by WP:NSOFT is enough. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. What criteria for significance is being applied to the statistical software packages listed at List_of_statistical_packages? Wes Turner (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing mentions, few citations; that's what the above WP:TLDR comes down to. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which mentions are "passing"? Which WP:TLDR are you referring to? Wes Turner (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion. Wes Turner (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the references don't spend a lot of time on statsmodels, however, John Stachurski, the co-author of Tom Sargent, is giving a pre-conference workshop on python including statsmodels at the conference of The Society for Computational Economics http://comp-econ.org/CEF_2014/PreConf.htm (although, statsmodels is only mentioned in parentheses as a scientific library)Josefpktd (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the AfD criteria: "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=statsmodels lists 130 results for mentions of **statsmodels** (a fairly unique term). Statsmodels is a standard SciPy ecosystem package. It is also included with Continuum Anaconda (DARPA) and Enthought Canopy by default. Wes Turner (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ~100 citations is too low for academic project to be listed on Wikipedia, in my opinion of course. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep. With 130 Google Scholar scholastic mentions, support from both primary scientific Python ecosystem groups, and packages in the standard MacPorts, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, and Gentoo package repositories (according to "whohas statsmodels"), Statsmodels is notable and noteworthy and deserves a page in Wikipedia. Wes Turner (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - There isn't any minimal number of citations required for academic work, or academic software for that matter. CS topics relying on a few dozen citations tend to get removed or merged, but there is precedent: scikit-learn was kept because of a JMLR paper with (then) some 100-200 citations. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I suppose prestigious journal citation is one criteria for success and notability. The exact BibTeX citation for a paper presented at the 9th Python in Science Conference (2010) regarding a collection of scipy/scikit statistics routines that had collectively been around and (clearly) utilized for many years in both academia and industry has not been listed in the statsmodels documentation; URIs and (DOI) URN still seem to be a mystery to the PDF community. As it stands, statsmodels meets and exceeds the precedent applied to many of the other statistical computer science software pages. (See Comparison_of_statistical_packages). If you are attempting to create demand for more citations, please consider adding "citation needed" where appropriate. As referenced in the commit log of this article, I utilized the general format of the scikit-learn article (infobox, headings, "is largely written in Python, with some core algorithms written in Cython to achieve performance" (should I mention the Fortran in NumPy and SciPy?)). Is there a particular reason which you have attempted to delete statsmodels in particular? I suggest here that peer review supported by journal advertising is essential to science; and peer production and testing through open source forges such as GitHub are strong indicators of community notability. Furthermore, there are 221 forks of statsmodels hosted by GitHub. While there were, as you mention, 163 forks of scikit-learn at the time the AfD resolution for scikit-learn was Keep, there are now 1,332 forks of scikit-learn hosted by GitHub. This frequency-statistic discussion supports the premise that statsmodels is notable enough for Wikipedia. There are many tests for statsmodels methods (in 'test_<name>.py' files of './tests' directories); there could always be more. Wes Turner (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - It's not the venue that matters, it's the citation count. If that's too low, WP:TOOSOON applies. I wasn't pointing to my own reasoning there, more to User:Gaijin42's: "usage, community, ecosystem, support, etc are irrelevant for the purposes of establishing WP:N". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to have commented on this thread, are you referring to a comment I have made elsewhere? I am not taking a !vote on this article, as I have not read the article, or reviewed the sources, just replying to the ping with general information. In any case, the opening paragraph of WP:N is fairly explicit " Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." See also Wikipedia:Subjective_importance. See also WP:NRV "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. [...] No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" More importantly, if a source fails WP:N it is also probably going to fail WP:RS and WP:V (and therefore WP:OR- if the sources documenting a topic are primary & non-independent sources, they aren't nearly as useful for backing facts. As stated above, blogs, and crowd-sourced info are not reliable by wikipedia standards, and the sites of the authors, or people selling/distributing/supporting the software are not neutral and objective voices about the topic. This is all summarized quite nicely in WP:GNG. There used to be text somewhere, but I can't find it now saying something to the effect of "notability is not the same thing as important. unimportant things can be notable. important things can be non-notable". Gaijin42 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gaijin42, I was referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scikit-learn, which I cited as precedent for keeping CS-related articles based on citation counts of ca. 100-200. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. One clarification from above, I think both count and venue are important. a small handful of cites is more than sufficient, if its say the New York Times, and Time magazine, or something. If its a bunch of personal blogs, Press releases, or places that document every release of every package, or just minor in-passing references, an infinite amount could still not be enough. Optimally you would have completely independent sources doing in depth coverage and analysis and commentary. Merely saying "Package X has feature Y, and is run with command-line Z" is not really helpful as an encyclopedic source. Who should use the package, what are the alternatives, why is this package better. those are sources that show notability. That everyone who uses distro-Z gets a copy automatically isn't really notability, even if distro-Z is the most notable thing in the world. Notability isn't inherited. ~~Again, no commentary on this particular package or its sources, as I have not read them.~~ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://github.com/statsmodels/statsmodels/wiki/Users-and-Citations Wes Turner (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete the seabold journal article is an excellent source, but its the only one. Everything else is just primary sources (docs) or in passing references, some just saying "we used statsmodels". The github list of cites is a prime example of this problem - none of the papers is about statsmodel, or discusses it at any length. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same could be said for scikit-learn, where the only direct academic cites 3 and 10 are about scikit-learn (by the same authors). I added the links to documentation not to demonstrate notability but to source the claims made in the article. How does Google Scholar read citations, anyway? BibTeX? Wes Turner (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Anything mentioned in Sargent and Stachurski's new book (http://quant-econ.net/_static/pdfs/quant-econ.pdf) is surely significant, and statsmodels meets that criterion. Cerberus (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of the content from the book about stats model is "Other Useful Statistics Libraries * statsmodels— various statistical routines" and "There are already functions available that will do this for us — an example is statsmodels.tsa.stattools.periodogram in the statsmodels package". This does not qualify as WP:SIGCOV Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I could summarize my exasperation, if someone was to spend time writing an additional paper advertising statsmodels, format it as a PDF (which doesn't re-flow accessibly, doesn't have #fragment-ids, and doesn't have structured RDFa citations) and then encourage citation proliferation among the communities of users already utilizing this statistical package in production, this WP:N debate would be over and no time would have been spent improving the actual methods or routines in the package. What a wastefully inconsistent application of notability criteria. I would hope that the same criteria is being applied to other statistical packages which are in production use. Again, keep. This time would've been better spent on actual tests than paragraphs of prose. That's all I have to say. Wes Turner (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this discussion has ignored a bit the WP:RAP distinction that should be applied when accepting or deleting articles. It states there that the principles and rules are "solely intended towards creating and distributing a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality." It seems to me that if we are able to write an encyclopedic article about statsmodels (I don't think this is in question), then there is no doubt that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia would be improved. There are pages and pages of statistical tests and estimators that have inter-wiki links to software which implements these methods. Here's one I just picked off the top of my head Autoregressive–moving-average_model#Implementations_in_statistics_packages. Statsmodels is notable in that it is the *only* comprehensive library that provides these statistical methods in the Python programming language. To be able to point the interested reader to the Wikipedia page about statsmodels within these articles seems to me that it would without question create a better encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jseabold (talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article may have been overlooked. It is another peer-reviewed, published conference paper about statsmodels in addition to mine mentioned above. I was a contributing author, but not the primary one, and I did not give the presentation [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jseabold (talk • contribs) 04:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep People don't cite packages they use, especially fundamental ones. I have used in the past many tools or packages and didn't always knew how to cite them. One criteria that, in my humble opinion, should be taken into account by WP for evaluating the notability of an open source package is the presence of a tutorial on that package at a major conference. I was the tutorial co-chair of the biggest conference on Scientific Python in 2012 and out of the 8 packages we deemed the most important to teach new comers to the Scientific Python community, Statsmodels was selected, together with Numpy, IPython or matplotlib (https://conference.scipy.org/scipy2012/tutorials.php). It was recorded and viewed almost 2000 times on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWRsxhUzpxk). Jonathanrocher (talk) 04:21, 5 March 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. also largely WP:G11 slakr^\ talk / 00:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Francis Xavier Parish, Mackay[edit]

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

whilst it looks an impressive article, it has been completely unreferenced for 7.5 years. I suspect it is full of original research and uncited cruft. I searched Australian search engine trove and gbooks and the only coverage is 1 line mentions which confirms church existence. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete A fine example of the sort of parish history that goes on the parish website, but it confirms that this is an ordinary parish of no special note. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune The effusive prose could be greatly trimmed leaving a spare but serviceable core. As it has a rare example of the noted stained glass artist, Harry Clarke, that alone is worthy of keeping it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why can't this just be mentioned in Harry Clarke's article? LibStar (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no guideline against cruft. Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the claim of 1000 parishioners comes a presumption that the affairs of the parish tend to attract the attention of media. However, without a single source in the article, our readers can't WP:verify that the parish even exists. The remedy to this means a complete or major rewrite of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very selective merge and redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockhampton, of which this parish is part. The article can be restored if sources turn up. There certainly aren't many sources, with no mention here, for example. -- 101.119.14.237 (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 101.119.14.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Pure local history. We do not generally consider parishes to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or heavily prune. Most of the content lacks WP:RS and is probably NN anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per IP above - that is the standard practice with subordinate entities which don't meet notability. Parishes in Australia tend to contain only one church and there can be dozens of them in a city or rural region. Orderinchaos 16:58, 28 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 / 03:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hym[edit]

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

A biography article that fails not only the basic criteria for the notability of biography articles but also the specific criteria for Musicians. SMS ^Talk 12:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 12:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 13:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Yaqoob Malik or HYM is an artist who has just launched a cover song as a debut. Once he starts doing more work there will be more details available. I would like to request to please cancel its deletion nomination as it will be updated on regular basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarihaPervezFan (talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Looks like a very nicely written article to me with proper sources in it to establish notability, should be kept. Why delete it?Sajjad Altaf (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sajjad Altaf As I explained in the nomination it fails the basic notability criteria for a biography that requires "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" for a subject to be considered notable. Now all the three sources in the article are primary and unreliable, thus failing each and every bit of this criteria. -- SMS ^Talk 19:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: I think we should still give it some time and give it a second thought. Moreover I see a couple of different sources there.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You can comment multiple times, but do not format your later comments as if they are separate !votes. postdlf (talk) 19:09, 4 March 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) 19:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown, Canberra[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability. No in depth coverage from secondary sources; in text citations only reference subject in passing with a lack of detail related to the subject. Also, article was originally created by blocked userRowEpict who is a suspected sock puppet of D62943. Dfadden (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no doubt that it is sometimes described as Canberra's Chinatown and even has a statue of Confucius, which was inaugurated by Jon Stanhope, a great supporter of public art. On the other there are Chinese restaurants everywhere in Canberra as there are in other Australian cities. It is true that it has the biggest concentration of Chinese groceries in Canberra, but all of this text is in the Dickson Centre, Australian Capital Territory article, which is sufficient. I'll take a better photo some day.--Grahame (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grahame. The term "Chinatown" isn't commonly applied to Dickson, and this is best covered as part of the article on the suburb. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have now added a couple of pictures of it to the Dickson Centre, Australian Capital Territory article.--Grahame (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete include in Dickson Centre, Australian Capital Territory article DCB1927 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect per above. Essence of the article is that the place sells vegetables and has limited parking, neither are inherently notable.► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 05:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not a Chinatown as such, merely an area which happens to have more Chinese shops than the average, and that much is covered in the appropriate article as noted by Grahame. Orderinchaos 17:07, 28 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) 19:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Basalaj[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 12:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 06:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The lot of a 3rd string keeper is poor one, if everyone else remains healthy. This player is borderline in so many ways. With a big team, but hasn't started. Lots of U20 play and coverage, but that doesn't count. Was with the New Zealand Olympic Team in London 2010, but wasn't even with the game squad. Lots of news coverage, but mostly routine. However I think he does meet WP:GNG with the media coverage of his Olympic spot, such as [29] [30] [31], and some other articles such as [32] [33] ... and he has a lot of the routine coverage, that doesn't quite meet WP:GNG Nfitz (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The links above do not to my mind establish GNG. The first is an interview and could form part of a GNG claim, but is insufficient on its own. the second is just a pen pic which every player who competed had on the BBC website, no depth whatsoever, the third is another brief-ish interview, but the source states that it is courtesy of the NZ football federation, so not really an independant source. The fourth mentions Basalaj in the title line but is more of a general article. Finally, the last link is to WP:ROUTINE transfer speculation. Fenix down (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was only a sampling, there's plenty of other articles [34] [35] [36] [37]. There's a lot of coverage over a period of time in a variety sources. Some is a little routine ... but it's hardly a local paper reporting about a local team. Nfitz (talk) 03:07, 26 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. I realize there has been some disruption in the history of this discussion. Some comments have been revision deleted, so as a non-admin, I cannot view them. However, an administrator clearly thought they were grossly inappropriate for the discussion, so I have disregarded them. In the comments of the discussion that I can view, there are some strong arguments and some weaker ones; however, the general consensus is very clear to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Very respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC), revised 22:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Galaxies[edit]

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

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

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

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

There is no reliable information about this subject. The lede speculates that it's defunct, but even that can't be actually verified. Most of the article is rambling original research, and there are BLP issues in the history and for all I know the current text, I can't actually make a lot of sense of it. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The current article is, as you say, undoubtedly laced with OR; however, and although I can't find sources to support my position since I'm not home and thus not able to research at the moment, Twin Galaxies is such a historical institution in the history of competitive video gaming that I cannot possibly believe it not to be notable. Everyone even remotely interested in serious arcade gaming or competitive high score competitions knows of Twin Galaxies as the reference. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the former Lead Writer for Twin Galaxies, still active within Twin Galaxies: Twin Galaxies is alive and well and going through an extensive process of reformation through a series of negotiations with several parties. Unfortunately,there those who wish to vandalize this page due to personal feelings they have for certain members of Twin Galaxies' personnel, unrelated to the reformation process. I ask that you please lock the page for edit until Twin Galaxies' internal negotiations are settled. This Wikipedia listing was once managed by a party no longer interested in maintaining it for Twin Galaxies; however it is the intention of Twin Galaxies to keep this listing up and maintain it once the reformation process is complete and a person is appointed for that purpose. -Cat DeSpira, on behalf of Twin Galaxies International — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatDeSpira (talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC) — CatDeSpira (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Clearly notable, plenty of reliable sources available[38]. AFD is not cleanup, this article needs cleanup. - hahnch e n 18:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Twin Galaxies is not out of business; it is just reorganizing and will become active again very soon. As the founder of Twin Galaxies, I have seen the Twin Galaxies Arcade rise from local fame in Ottumwa, Iowa to gain worldwide recognition as the birthplace of organized video game playing . Plus, being recognized from 1983 until recent years as the official adjudicator of verified world record high scores by the Guinness organization has given TG legitimate claim to be a n historical part of the global gaming culture. Twin Galaxies has appeared in eight movies: "Chasing Ghosts, King of Kong, Frag, The Video Craze, The King of Arcades, The NES Club, Man Vs. Snake and The Gamer Age. This media coverage is due to the import role that Twin Galaxies plays in the global video game culture. Deletion due to vandalism doesnt work. If not guarded properly, the wiki page for any famous person could be vandalized everyday, but that doesn't take away its legitimate right to be recognized and historical commemorated on wikipedia. 13:13 Walter Day - 22 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Day (talk • contribs)

Keep. Well, I suppose we know how the article got this way now, and it looks like we need a few reminders about conflict of interest editing... Anyway, a cursory Google or WP:VG/RS search shows that Twin Galaxies has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) E.g., look at Kotaku's tag alone! I don't see the argument for deletion, but there is certainly one for cleanup. czar ♔ 20:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was fairly major aspect of King of Kong. Before that, it was still notable. For example: 50 Best Websites by Time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Twin Galaxies has been the target of a group of disgruntled people, as the recent vandalism of the main Wikipedia entry indicates. Twin Galaxies is THE authoratitive source of video game high scores since the very beginning. The non-vandalized article is a valuable source of historical data and should by all means be kept. Lock it if you have to , prevent un-authorized modifications if possible, but please do not delete it. Datagod (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Suggesting that Twin Galaxies' merit exists only in the delicate ego of some video game world record seekers would be a mistake. Twin Galaxies has been a service to the coin-op industry since 1981 where it has helped gather a global community of coin-op fans through live events, magazine coverage, newspaper articles, books, and movies. Walter Day has worked side by side with all the legendary Industry leaders from the early days (Ralph Baer, Nolan Bushnell, Roger Sharpe, etc) up to current days with Stern Pinball and Raw Thrills. As such Twin Galaxies is an iconic branding with a legacy that heralds its' status as rising above the immediate moment to the timeless-ness of "LEGEND." I'd suggest putting a hold on content revisions until the current ownership, with assistance of the Patron of Twin Galaxies, Walter Day can properly present the storied history of Twin Galaxies in a way that fits the professional business standards of Wikipedia. Thank you. Written by former arcade employee and current assistant to Mr. Day. 1500points (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments made above, particularly as a major aspect of a motion picture (King of Kong), the topic is definitely notable and only needs improvement. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Twin Galaxies has a great historic important to the gaming world. It is not about a man but a publication and a place. Even the Genius Book oF World Records used them as a source of official information. To think of Twin Galaxies as a person is to ignore its vast history. --LukeBK (talk) 18:33, 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. slakr^\ talk / 03:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ndaba Mandela[edit]

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

I do not see any personal notability for Nelson Mandela's grandson. Children of heads of state are sometimes considered notable , but I don;t think this extends further. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was pretty heavily debated during the creation process, and the edit trail shows that as well as why it was approved. I don't see why this is being further debated. -SD (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meets GNG. 81.129.157.53 (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid per WP:ILLEGIT. Leaky Caldron 15:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best we have is he is a founder of an organization we do not have an article on. He does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:BIO. Most of the sources in the article only mention him briefly and are mainly focused on Nelson Mandela. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, but it doesn't matter how extensive the discussion was prior to creation, it doesn't seem to have covered whether or not the subject is actually notable. Yet another instance of something being accepted at AFC well before it is ready. That said, AFC is not "approval" and doesn't guarantee that an article can't or won't be challenged at AFD anyway, as this has here. The sourcing here is pretty weak including multiple instances of the same article by the same author run in sister papers being presented as separate sources. Most of the sources are prefaced on the fact that he is Mandela's grandson and he doesn't inherit notability from his (very) notable grandfather. Stalwart111 08:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:Straightbstudent/Ndaba Mandela, per WP:BASIC. If notability cannot be proven, perhaps Africa Rising Foundation could be created, and Ndaba Mandela be redirected there. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 23:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 03:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama on mass surveillance[edit]

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

WP:NOT#NEWS. POTUS makes tens of speeches each year, and there's no indication of why this one is particularly important that it deserves its own article. No landmark disclosures, no iconic phrases or quotes. I've read the entire transcript, so please someone tell me what I have missed. The article has a cursory description of the speech, balanced with a repository of sound bites of continued discussion post the Snowden disclosures. It's ironic that pro-privacy advocates say Obama is offering nothing in this speech. Anything worth keeping could go aftermath of the global surveillance disclosure. Ohc ^¡digame! 07:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though this article should indeed be summarized at aftermath ..., there is enough detail and importance in Obama's responses that commentators have got their teeth into, over time. It is not just one speech, but a sequence of 4 statements over a year, with their reactions, so it is not iconic, but it is more than news. It is an important subtopic of Obama, of the NSA and of mass surveillance. (Though 'other stuff exists' is not an argument for keep, European foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration is worth a read as one of many similar Obama articles for comparison.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This isn't about a single speech, it is about a long string of statements on mass surveillance that spans from June of 2013 to January of 2014 (and it is reasonable to assume that more statements will be made). Also, this article describes the reactions of high ranking officials (many of them elected) in Germany, the United States and the European Union, as well as companies such as Facebook, Google and Mozilla and organizations such as the EFF to the specific statements made by Obama. As for the Notnews argument, that is really meant to apply to things that only get covered for a couple of days and forgotten. It does not apply when there is extended coverage for months that receives numerous reactions from world leaders. Altogether, this is a notable article with some minor issues that would be better solved through editing than deletion.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with the original rationale as it's fairly common to split up extremely large articles into subcategories, particularly politicians and their stances, see George Washington and religion, George Washington and slavery, George W. Bush and the Iraq War, plus the separate articles on the Political positions of Barack Obama. For me, the question is 1.) whether "mass surveillance" is a wide enough topic to be independently notable or if this needs to be moved to something like Barack Obama on National Security or some broader topics and 2.) whether "Barack Obama on mass surveillance" is the right name. It seems like with previous presidents the standard title is "Name and topic" not "Name on topic". For now I'll hold my !vote until some more people with experience with politics articles weigh in. Either way, I think merge-not-delete is appropriate, as there's plenty of good content here. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that a name change would be best, perhaps to something like "Obama and Surveillance". If the name is changed, information about Obama's position and actions on surveillance before the NSA leaks could be added (I know he spoke greatly on the Patriot Act and that there were a few smaller cases of surveillance that got controversy during his presidency, but don't quite meet the "mass" criteria).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OSE is not an argument on such discussions either.Lihaas (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read WP:OSE, it doesn't apply to this - it even specifically says that when deciding upon creation of articles you can look to past analogous situations to determine if something is common on Wikipedia. The argument I put forth wasn't that this should be kept because those things exist, but that the reasoning for creating them also applies here - extremely large articles like you get for famous politicians like Barack Obama are generally split up into conceptual subgroups. It's clear that this has already happened for Barack Obama, and this material probably does belong on Wikipedia, so the question is where it belongs - does it belong in one of the existing policy articles, a new one or what? I'd probably tend towards moving it to something about national security or something, but again I'd like to hear how these are normally organized from someone who usually creates politician articles of this sort. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 03:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZERULE-We are generally required to split up articles when they get way to large to reasonably read. The PRISM, Reactions to global surveillance disclosures and Obama articles are all well over 100,000 bytes, so a merge would not be a good idea for these articles. The Political positions of Barack Obama article is less than 20,000 bytes and has a section for security, although it would look kind of lopsided if any significant part of the article were merged into it because it would nearly double the size of the article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete UNDUE influence to one speech. There have been many important speeches with reactions. This can be merged or deleted with the PRISM surveillance. Or mentioned on his/administrations page.Lihaas (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article covers statements made by Obama from June of 2013 to January of 2014 on surveillance. It focuses on more than the January 17th speech.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is primarily about one speech, this seems to be very much a surmountable problem, not necessitating deletion, as other material exists on the topic and will very likely continue to be produced. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 03:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is not limited to one speech, but should cover Barack Obama's positions on the topic in general. It needs additions, not deletion. It might at some point need renaming as more material is added about the Barack Obama administration rather than the man per se, but it is clear that as the person at least nominally in command over the NSA that Obama's personal use of his authority in this situation to control the fate of this issue is of very high historical significance. Wnt (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. You can see how odd this page is by looking at Political positions of Barack Obama. Every other area that got its own page are general policy areas: economic, energy, foreign, and social policy. The only one that focuses on a narrow subject is mass surveillance. I don't see any justification for that. I suspect, perhaps unfairly, the reason for this one specific area of interest getting its own page reflects the editorial interests of the users and editors of this site. I simply don't see any other reasoning on why this area is getting outsized attention. Perhaps a page on national security could include a section on surveillance. mikeman67 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that this information would be best displayed on a page about national security, then why would it be in the interest of Wikipedia to delete it outright? Someone would have to pointlessly research and rewrite the information we already have in this article. If this is the route a majority of responders want to go, I would suggest renaming the article to something like "Obama and National Security" (no such page currently exists, so a merge wouldn't work), and then adding information to the article. Also, the reason such a "narrow" page exists in the first place is because of the intense media and political attention given to the subject. There are more than enough sources and information available to justify a keep.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well to clarify, I think the page should be deleted (but not the content necessarily). It would be absurd to create a page for every single policy of Obama. It would be like instead of Economic policy of Barack Obama, creating pages for corporate tax policy of Barack Obama, Social Security policy of Barack Obama, Education policy of Barack Obama, etc. Obviously we can find an endless amount of reliable sources to create those pages as well (and just as many sources and information as mass surveillance, and likely more so). Like it says in WP:NOTABILITY, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." So as you can see in articles like Political positions of George W. Bush, one page is sufficient to list the positions of an American president. I don't believe a separate page is required here. But yes, if the consensus is to keep, I would suggest instead creating a page on national security generally (but personally think there are already an excessive amount of articles for a topic that could be better covered on the political positions page). And this all goes without saying that most of the page is dedicated to a single speech he made (and again, nobody would propose to create a page for every speech Obama gives). mikeman67 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through all of the comments, I am seeing a consensus that the information in the article should be largely kept. However, there is legitimate debate over whether it should be allowed to stand as is in its current article or be made part of a larger article (presumably about Obama and national security). Both are valid solutions, although I have argued for a keep primarily because there is a lot of information (as well as reactions from prominent individuals and organizations) on Obama and Surveilance (much more than on the overwhelming majority of subsections in the categories you identified)and much more is liable to be released. If we just straight-merged to a section on National Security, it would quickly become excessively long and give excessive focus to surveillance at the expense of other forms of Obama's national security policy. That being said, the solution proposed below would work. Chalk me up as a merge/article rename to Obama on National Security supporter should a consensus form against keeping the page. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reason why there's such a narrow focus on Mass Surveillance is because of the interests of the people involved in writing the article, but I don't see that as a reason for deletion. Articles are improved according to the interest of the people improving them, and it's pointless to deny that extra content because they're getting "too far ahead" or something. I realize that was a side point, but I'd like to address the fact that it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether this article deserves to be here.

If anything, you're not making an argument for deletion so much as refactoring into a broader topic (which is probably a good idea). We could even wholesale move it to Barack Obama on National Security which would be a stub with a really high quality subsection in it, and leave it to the editors in this area to improve the article.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 05:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my argument about whether to keep or delete the article isn't based on the editor's political positions. I only speculated why there was a page on mass surveillance and not education, social security, or corporate taxation. I do think this whole exercise involves a bit of judgement and is quite subjective, so I did think that was a relevant point. But clearly not the focus of my argument. But yes, I did suggest doing an article titled National security policy of Barack Obama as an alternative to deleting (which is what I meant above by suggesting a page on national security generally), in line with already created articles like Economic policy of Barack Obama and Energy policy of the Obama Administration (unclear why the naming convention is inconsistent). Note that the page would be on policy positions, so inevitably much of the current article here would need to be heavily pared down and refined. My vote, however, is still for delete, until someone can convince me why the topic deserves a page on its own merits (simply arguing there are enough sources isn't sufficient when the topic can be covered better in Political positions of Barack Obama). mikeman67 (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused here. Your vote is to delete the article or to merge the contents? It seems like you are supporting a merge/redirect, but then you say your vote is to delete. Is "delete" your way of saying that a paged called "Barack Obama on mass surveillance" shouldn't exist, regardless of whether the content is simply moved somewhere else? That seems nonstandard. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeman67, in a merge outcome, the current article would be deleted, but the information contained within would be saved in another article. In a delete, all of the information in the article is destroyed and irrevocable lost. If you want to include it elsewhere, you would have to reresearch and rewrite it. (Deletes are usually reserved for information that is entirely non-notable and has no place anywhere on Wikipedia). If you want to merge the article, I would suggest doing so in the wider Obama and National Security. Merging it into the political positions of Obama article would double it in size. We could of course delete a lot of the information, but this seems rather pointless when other valid merge locations exist that would leave the information decently intact.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets the general notability guideline and doesn't come under WP:What Wikipedia is not. Aftermath of the global surveillance disclosure is over 123,000 bytes, whereas Wikipedia:SPLIT#Size_split says that articles over 100 kB "almost certainly should be divided"--the opposite of what's proposed. In the Reactions section, there are four quotes. While one is lengthy, two have only two words each. A single lengthy quote is a good reason for deleting the quote, but a poor reason for deleting the entire article. The nominator has linked to WP:NPOV, perhaps to tell us that pro-surveillance viewpoints aren't adequately covered by the article. I do see that problem, but it could be fixed through editing. —rybec 15:26, 4 March 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. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of shootings in Colorado[edit]

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

Unwarranted content forking. Also casts undue weight on to shootings in Colorado with no other U.S. State having a similar page. CRRays Head90 | ^#OneMoreGame 22:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nom does not give a valid reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say WP:UNDUE is a pretty big reason. CRRays Head90 | ^#WelcomeHome 04:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Bearian, no reason for deletion at this time.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not active enough as of late to place a vote, so I'll just comment. If I could offer a suggestion, it would be to delete the article, and create a new subcategory of Category:Murder in Colorado, maybe something along the lines of Murders in Colorado by shooting or something similar. Just a thought. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:12, 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) 19:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Misteri dell'Area 51[edit]

(Find video game sources: "I Misteri dell'Area 51" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:N. No sources. Possible advertisement. Soetermans. T / C 20:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. If it's popular, maybe it can be merged to some collection of popular YouTube series, but I don't see anything to indicate that it's notable enough to mention anywhere. As far as I can tell, it's only got 100 hits on Google, which doesn't really fill me with optimism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable WP:WEB content not passing WP:GNG with multiple, reliable, independent in-depth sources. I cannot find any such coverage about the channel or episodes or even passing mentions in reliable media. The article seems to be mostly trivial material that serves only for promotion. Cannot see how this stand out among thousands of other channels. (Disclaimer: saw post on WT:WPVG) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:42, 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Admissions and Placement Office[edit]

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

It makes no sense to have this article. It's a rather routine branch of a government ministry, and since the name is generic, it doesn't even need a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a new section in Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (UAE) Stuartyeates (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom's rationale. I see no evidence of notability for this minor government office.--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:18, 3 March 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. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mukarrib[edit]

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

Appears to be a dictionary entry, perhaps more suitable for Wiktionary. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i really do not know but the article exist in other languages. I can expand it a bit, would that be enough to keep it? it is a unique ruling title and has a different function than that of a king or a prince.. --يوسف حسين (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep t seems it would be easily expandable Most goverment titles and offices are suitable subjects for articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion. --BiH (talk) 08:20, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Branko Pintarič[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An amateur theatre director and actor who evidently fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:NACTOR. Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not correct, that "amateur actor." Pintarič is poet and writer. His works has: Kak so šli v lejs trejbit/Kako so šli drvarit (2007, ISBN 978-961-6485-07-4) and a poetry-book Kmični smej/Temni smeh (2012. ISBN 978-961-255-044-8) Doncsecz^talk 19:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has been described as an amateur actor here. This of course is not a reliable source, but the burden of evidence that he meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:AUTHOR is on you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also described, that pisatelj/writer and not amateur. Only theatrical amateur. Here is the information about the Festival Dialekto about the prekmurian works. Pintarič is also litterateur. Doncsecz^talk 19:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's difficult to tell for sure but there is enough sourcing evidence that deleting the article could do more harm than good. -- GreenC 17:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is definatelly notable in Slovenia. His suport and work on preservation of prekumorski language is well known. One of his books are even wrote in that language witch is on the verge to die out.Stepojevac (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no (reliably sourced) evidence that this director passes WP:CREATIVE or WP:NACTOR. The burden of proof is on the one who wants to keep the content. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above --BiH (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this is not a popularity vote. The decisions about whether to keep or delete articles are based on reliable sources proving the notability of this person in the sense of the above-cited accepted guidelines. So far, no such source whatsoever has been provided for this person. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:51, 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth sensory analysis[edit]

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

The described method, while based solidly in science described in the cited journal articles, appears to be used only by a single entity (the Institute for Sensory Analysis) as a market research tool. The title "in-depth sensory analysis" itself is too broad for an article, and the specific use described in this article is of too limited a scope to be encyclopedic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the rationale expressed by the nominator the article appears to me to be an advert for the sole laboratory concerned. Research has led me to consider the creating editor to be firmly associated with that laboratory and thus to have placed this as clever and careful PR material for the lab (0.9 probability). While I proposed it initially for renaming I have come to the conclusion that a full discussion here is the better route. I can be persuaded otherwise if the article is made to be generic and thus POV and COI are removed from the equation. Ping me if that takes place and I will revisit my !vote. Fiddle Faddle 16:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article seems to have been a 'fire and forget' article. The original editor appears to have no interest in it and it does appear, rather, to be spam, albeit reasonably subtle spam. It would be disappointing were this to close as no consensus even if relisting generates no further opinions. Fiddle Faddle 14:36, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camilo Him[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References lack independence or are trivial. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think this article is subject to deletion based on WP:CSD#A7, so I removed the tag. At the same time, I removed a couple sentences in the beginning that are copied/pasted material from websites. Just because I removed the tag doesn't mean the article is not deletable per the usual notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The related article Big Shows should perhaps be considered in this same deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seems borderline, but if the Big Shows content also by editor User:Vlaich was merged in then the two together would probably be notable, with a bit of trimming. [Note to eventual closer, please don't delete both without further discussion if a merge is supported here]. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article relates to Big Shows and was created for it because there was a comment that it was orphan. Here is the important discussion you should decide on (copied conversation from Big Shows talk):

Hi Reddogsix,

With all due respect, I have to assume that you know much much better about the fashion world than the fashion elite: Anna Sui, Carolina Herrera, Ralph Rucci, Carmen Marc Valvo, Rebecca Minkoff, Dennis Basso, Lubov Azria, Zang Toi, Naeem Khan, Vivienne Tam, Reem Acra, Custo Dalmau and Mara Hoffman or celebrities like: Karlie Kloss, Sandra Bernhard, Karolina Kurkova, Selita Ebanks, Eve, Nana Meriwether, Sean Young and Nigel Barker (who are these people anyways?)... not to mention Lincoln Center and Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week organization who allowed 30 aluminum prints 24" x 36" (an incredible big space ... basketball court size) just for a Non-Notable Photo Show by Non-Notable Photographer..

The fashion elite even wasted their time not just to see the exhibit but to sign prints of this Non-Notable Photo Show by Non-Notable Photographer!

Really? Here take 1 min to look for yourself... visual proof (don't take my word for it): http://bigshowsny.tumblr.com

You know best! Vlaich (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm is misplaced if not bordering on WP:UNCIVIL. What I can say is it appears I have a better understanding of Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion than it appears you do. Notability is not about popularity, it is about meeting certain Wikipedia guidelines. If you have not already done so, I suggest you read WP:42. reddogsix (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is fine with me if you so desperately want to delete this article. Your comment is ALL and ONLY about POPULARITY: Non-Notable Photo Show by Non-Notable Photographer. You could have said please improve content/writing within X time... it was not about content nor proof of such exhibit having taken place!

At least you and Wikipedia editors can see that there was a Big Shows Exhibit at the Lincoln Center during Mercedes Benz Fashion Week and it was indeed attended "Exclusively" by very important people in the fashion industry. It was not a 2 photo exhibit that's for sure! It would have been nice that people in general knew that this exhibit and event took place... but maybe not ) Vlaich (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you decide on deleting these 2 articles or let me know which should be kept and edited. Just because some of you may not be in the fashion industry, it doesn't mean it is not noteworthy. Remember: "BIG SHOWS is a retrospective that highlights American Fashion Week History and its continuity in the 21st century." After all... NY fashion week started only in the 90's... and from there we got Marc Jacobs who is the designer for LV! Designers thought it was noteworthy to go to the exhibit...

BTW the exhibit will be doing a world tour.... yes to celebrate USA NY Fashion Week and designers!!!!! ...so feel free to delete the article ) added by Vlaich somewhere in this set of edits

Vlaich, you ask above: celebrities like: Karlie Kloss, Sandra Bernhard, Karolina Kurkova, Selita Ebanks, Eve, Nana Meriwether, Sean Young and Nigel Barker (who are these people anyways? I have no idea. The names aren't even slightly familiar. I looked up the first one and found that she's a model. Perhaps because I'm not interested in clothes, I'm not the slightest bit interested in models. However, I am interested in photography. I can even manage to get interested in fashion photography. So tell us more about this photographer, please. Not which celeb turned up somewhere, but about his photographs. Base it on reliable sources. (And yes of course, people other than Vlaich are very welcome to respond.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand. no problem... but all the designers (included in txt) are well known (and the celebs too)... and all except 2 people are already in wikipedia. Others who were present and less well known I did not add. BTW I can include/un-orphan (either) article by adding a comment to Fern Mallis page (who was at the exhibit and did a radio interview on the exhibit/photographer)... she was the creator of Fashion Week NY (7th on 6th)... and perhaps the exhibit is but a homage to her tenure and vision. I think I understand from comments it is better to put Big Shows under Camilo rather than an article about the exhibit.... correct? OK... then I will try to do the write up from the photographer side)
P.S. Sean Young (main actress in Blade Runner, Dune), Eve (Rapper), Nigel Barker (TV show), Sandra Bernhard (well known for everything ;-))

Pls advice. thx Vlaich (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Started working on merging page and adding info.... Vlaich (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now with the two pages merged and more sources added to each this passes WP:GNG. Well done Vlaich. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review and Comment Thx ictu oculi for the feedback. I added all new info and sources. Anybody else who has a say in keeping/deleting article should check...

Vlaich (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable photographer with fashion photographs in top international fashion magazines. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notable how? reddogsix (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When? Hi, when do i know an article is OK (how many editors must say keep)? And when is it OK to remove deletion notice on a page?

Vlaich (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:03, 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Fogel[edit]

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

Subject has held various non-exec roles and "managing partner" of a London law firm, but I don't see anything that conclusively affirms notability. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- He has fulfilled several semi-public part-time roles, but adding them all up he is still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources that establish notability per WP:BIO, just incidental mentions. mikeman67 (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falcos Panagiotis[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMG based on sources provided. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in the article shows evidence of notability, and I couldn't find anything either. Also, the article appears to be largely copied from his website.--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:27, 3 March 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrant Academy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Its an advertizement of a coaching center. There are millions of coaching centers in India, who prepares for Engineering entrance test, its one of them. The article is poorly cited the references. Wikipedia is not for advertisement of any shops/coaching center Jussychoulex (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is an advert and the references don't contain any in depth information in reliable sources (most only mentioning Vibrant as one of a list or because a source went or works there, and one being student reviews). At the previous AfD DGG thought this was sufficiently in depth. I disagree, but am linking for fairness. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above.-- Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 13:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nothing has changed since last AfD's consensus of keeping the article. The language of the article is not promotional to make it an advertisement. If having article on Wikipedia is advertisement, we have to delete whole WP and get going on other business. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the basic criteria of all articles:- significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:Other stuff exists is no argument whatsoever. Arjayay (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TOI, Forbes, Telegraph are all reliable and independent unless you can prove they aren't. And who has given OSE as argument to keep? Also please sign your comments. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Significant, reliable and independent all have to be achieved at the same time - There is no merit in significant coverage in an unreliable source, or trivial coverage in a reliable one, but I see not you are not even tying to claim that any of the references are significant. As for OSE - you appear to be arguing that if we delete this, we have to delete other similar articles. - Arjayay (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has significant sources. Although if you are expecting a Oscar winning film to be made as Vibrant Life, you are expecting too much. This is significant enough for a tutorial class. If 2k+ students attend these classes, this class is bigger than many schools. & i didn't say we have to delete similar article. I said we have to delete whole Wikipedia if having an article is considered as advertisement. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the "significant sources" is that none of them are actually about Vibrant Academy or mention it more than in passing Neonchameleon (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth coverage by national Hindi newspaper Dainik Bhaskar. [39] [40] [41] So i guess it passes WP:42 now. -- Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 06:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pure advertizement and Danik bhaskar is a local hindi newspaper. Strongly favour to delete this advertizement from the Wikipedia Jussychoulex (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its utter rubbish to call DB a local newspaper. After Dainik Jagran, DB had been in 2003-04 the 2nd largest Hindi paper in India with 13.5 million readers. And you have called this article "advertisement" multiple times but haven't actually talked on how it is so. Isn't the Tourism in the United States an advertisement? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Jussychoulex, you were one of the "Speedy Delete" voters in the previous AfD. Are you aware of and pay heed to WP:CONSENSUS? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep After seeing the articles published in Dainik Bhaskar (links above by User:Shivamsetu), I feel the article meets notability criteria, as those newspaper references do have significant coverage of the institution. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current references indicate this fills WP:GNG Leondz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Clothing[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some sources below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could merge to JD Sports if it's not notable, since JD Sports has bought it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable international chain of clothing retail stores. Merge might also be worth considering. Is it being integrated or is it being kept separate? Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly merge. At the least, a merge would be more functional than outright deletion of this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Established firm, Has coverage in major national news Leondz (talk) 12:35, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara of Karniów[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO and is an incredibly minor footnote of a figure in history, per WP:NOTGENEALOGY ColonelHenry (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: note that the Czech results ("Barbora Krnovská") look somewhat more promising, but, then, I don't read Czech. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: here (229 – 232?) is an old source in German, in which she is called Barbara of Jägerndorf. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the source correctly, she was the duchess regnant (?) of the Duchy of Jägerndorf (called by Wikipedia and its mirrors "the Duchy of Krnov") for twenty years, which may be a fair claim to notability. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... which this lovely up-to-date source seems to confirm. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another German source: [42] הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was the reigning duchess of a place. We need to better reflect this fact in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. -- GreenC 03:14, 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysalis institute[edit]

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

non-notable local religious/spiritual organization, per WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH, and written as an advertisement against WP:NOTPROMOTION. ColonelHenry (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what I think yet, but I will say that the Chrysalis Institute itself seems fundamentally non-notable. However, if it legitimately is a successor of the Chrysalis Group founded by Nancy Milner, it probably just barely passes the GNG. I found a few quality sources on that, which I added to the article, but nothing substantial on the new incarnation.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does seem to be the same organization as founded by Nancy Milner. In this case, there are (barely) enough RS discussing it to meet the GNG. I've added some to article. Perhaps more to come, but I think the ones I've added suffice. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about this one, I'll say.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched on High Beam and Google and could find nothing substantial in reliable secondary sources on this organization. User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has come up with about all there is on this group - and I do not think it is enough. Almost everything one can find is self-description or promotional. This appears to be a small non-notable local spiritual (non-denominational, sort of New Age) group. I don't see anything on the Chrysalis Group or Nancy Milner (deceased) except one old article from 2001 in an "alternative" web news blog. I agree with the nomination. Donner60 (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. the sources provided are either primary or local coverage in Richmond. Needs wider coverage to be meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 00:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manish J. Tipu[edit]

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

A search for reliable sources was unsuccessful, fails WP:GNG and BLPNOTE. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless more can be found. I did spot a single sentence reference at a Hindustani Times ref via Highbeam [43], but didn't see enough to argue for WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:08, 3 March 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 / 00:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DefensAnimal.org[edit]

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

Per WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG, while it's a 10 year old organization, and has a few credits (most likely from publicity seeking gimmicks), the coverage on this organization is rather superficial and not of sufficient coverage. ColonelHenry (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and the article is furthermore essentially advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think all these are respetables, but subjective reviews. It's an informative article from an NGO. It doesn’t say something like "DefensAnimal.org is the best NGOs ...", for example, that itself would certainly promo, but it's not the case. Its contains neutral information only.

I don’t know what exactly mean “sufficient coverage”, but I think that it’s a subjective opinion too.

About confusion, the words are common and known on animal rights movement, and they are highlighted to link with its respective articles. --EGAÑA89 (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:58, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manybooks.net[edit]

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

On the surface this looks like a referenced article. However, if you remove self-sources, blogs, press releases, trivial namechecks in lists of services that do X, and of course WP:OR (X does Y! Source: X page on Y), there's actually nothing left. The only non-trivial independent source is a blog. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article lists the website as being non-commercial, yet the site itself is covered in advertising, along with a 'donate' button. Surely this is misleading and not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Especially as the site seems to be simply regurgitating Project Gutenberg titles. The owner is listed as Advertical Media, LLC, which looks suspiciously commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.21.31 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the sources I don't believe it's notable, same finding as Guy, and can't find additional sources. The name "manybooks" makes searching difficult. There are many PD text re-packaging sites and this one has pretty good quality but nothing out of the ordinary. -- GreenC 04:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the article has a lot of sources, none of them can satisfy WP:GNG. Further, given the apparent nature of site, its promotion here is borderline WP:G11 Leondz (talk) 12:38, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of monomyths[edit]

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

This list is not a list of monomyths described by Joseph campbell as the list states, but rather a list of three fantasy novels that have been described as using the model of Campbells monomyth. This is not encyclopedic, and the list basically has no content. I recommend deleting with no prejudice against recreation of the list if someone is willing to actually build a list of monomyths and provide sufficient content and introduction to make the list meaningful and encyclopedic. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. Lack of reliable sources (2 that fail WP:RS and a deadlink to Commonsense Media, which is marginal by RS standards). You could rename to "list of novels that correspond to monomyth models" but you'd need reliable sources, and ideally more entries. Similarly, lack of RSes/explanation means a merge anywhere is problematic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't often disagree with Maunus, but I don't see why we can't have such a list (which was much longer a little while ago. There are a number of novels that could be included, for a start. Sources for this include[44] [45] There's the book The American Monomyth discussed here.[46] The moodern welfare state is called a monomyth here.[47] The story of the boar in the Odyssey has been called a monomyth.[48] Such a list needs sources (as do most, although most seem to lack them). But I can't see a policy or guideline reason to delete, whatever we may think about the actual concept. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A list of monomyths and a list of narratives that have been called monomyths are two different lists in my view.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. I'd be happy with a name change. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When an article has been around for several years, part of WP:BEFORE should be to check the edit history to see if there are earlier versions which would escape the given reasons for deletion. In this case, the article as it was shortly after creation five years ago and as it was six months ago, just before major surgery, both seem to avoid the nominator's objections, though I can see either being brought to AfD for quite other reasons. PWilkinson (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact that the list in the past has been longer, because it was full of unsourced OR entries based, doesnt avoid my objections.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Should be expanded, though. Ellomate (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 23:36, 6 March 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. Wizardman 15:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Thieves[edit]

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

British University baseball team, seems to be a non-notable subject Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of UK amateur baseball teams have wikipedia pages, there is no reason to single this one out. The referencing needs work but the subject itself seems to pass wk:notability quite comfortably to me. Note that poor referencing or article content is not a valid reason for deletion on notability grounds. Py0alb (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone in and fixed the previously dead link Py0alb (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With the exception of The Boat Race UK university sport has a very low profile, even within the local community. Furthermore baseball has a very low profile as a sport. I would be surprised if you could find any sources beyond student publications, such as local or national press. Most UK university American Football articles were deleted for this reason. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable team. Google search revealed no in-depth coverage in reliable sources at all (and hardly even any passing mentions!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So just to clarify, are ALL university sports teams non-notable? Are we purging wikipedia of every article on university sport? If not, which sports are notable and who decides that? Is it based purely upon the personal biases of the admin in question?

Deleting this was extremely poor protocol, the discussion as to the notability of different sports had barely started and a consensus had clearly not been reached.

Py0alb (talk) 11:27, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of tests[edit]

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

This article is a incomplete (and never will be complete) list of tests. The tests cross many disciplines and really I don't see how this is useful or acceptable under the MOS Stand alone list policy. If I were to add all the medical tests that I personally can rhyme off this article would be so large it would be even less useful yet still incredibly incomplete. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on policy grounds Looking at the list of reasons for deletion, I think reason 4 and reason 14 apply here. This is not an encyclopedic topic, and it tends to attract spam links set up by the test publishers. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. postdlf (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP as navigational list of articles, complementary to Category:Tests per WP:CLN. It is irrelevant that it will never be complete (especially as it is limited to tests that merit articles, i.e., notable tests, and not merely all tests that exist). If the number of entries grows large enough, then it could simply be split into sublists by topic/field just like we do with other large lists. Re: the "attract spam links" argument by the above !voter, that's not something we consider a valid reason for deletion; see WP:SUSCEPTIBLE or WP:NOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP. This list is complementary to Category:Tests and subcategories therein, and is a useful navigational aid. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When fully developed, this will be a list of lists like legal test. Such a hierarchy seems sensible for navigation. Andrew (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- An article like legal test is logical, it is easily defined. A general list of tests like this article is hard to define, provides no means of navigation and it could potentially include millions of articles. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It provides indexing of and navigation between articles that are about tests, the same as Category:Tests. That's why WP:NOTDUP was cited above (really, you should read it). It is limited to only tests that have articles, and this is typical for lists of X where not all Xs that exist are notable. If we were fortunate enough to have millions of valid articles about notable tests (however unlikely that is), then we'd convert it into a list of lists as is typical practice for lists that grow too large. So you haven't offered any valid arguments for deletion. postdlf (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi there, I have read WP:NOTDUP and your suggestion to "read it" is not assuming good faith. The problem I have with this list is it has no defining characteristic and is open to really anything being added. It is not useful for navigation nor does it help someone locate the test they would like to find. In fact I would argue it does the exact opposite to your keep point. It would be akin to an article of a general list of companies instead of lists of companies under defining characteristics (see Category:Lists_of_companies which manages this under a container category instead of a huge unusable list). This article should be deleted and the content merged to area specific lists (i.e. legal test) as this would aid in navigation. You have not provided any valid argument for not deleting this article besides quoting various policies and not providing any content to your argument . Please WP:AGF next time thank you. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suggested you read it because your comments displayed no understanding or awareness of WP:CLN generally or WP:NOTDUP specifically, given the length at which that guideline explains that lists of articles and categories are complementary navigational tools. The inclusion criteria for List of tests is the same as for Category:Tests, so if we can verifiably categorize an article as a "test" we can verifiably include it in a list of tests. I don't see any evidence that there's been confusion on that point, and even if there were we've certainly dealt capably with much more thorny issues with list inclusion than "is this article about a test?"
        "This article should be deleted and the content merged to area specific lists..." Um, that's not deletion. That's development of the list into sublists, which as noted above would be done whenever editors think that would be useful to do, probably because of WP:SIZE. In the meantime, headers already organize List of tests topically, so your opinions that it should be replaced by area-specific lists or that it doesn't help readers find what articles we have on tests don't make any sense at all. postdlf (talk) 21:43, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crowne Plaza Hotel (Lebanon)[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. 5 star hotels are not inherently notable. and this one has no sources to back notability. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete then Redirect: Per nom. Redirect to Crowne Plaza. Keep: Article has been significantly expanded to establish notability. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 05:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Blofeld asked for an opinion. He has expanded the article with enough sources to show that it is clearly a notable venue. Big downtown hotels usually are. A lot of stuff happens there. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A 5 star hotel in a capital city will usually meet GNG because they're usually prominent buildings and projects or/and business venues.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 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) 19:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BloodyHelp[edit]

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

does not meet notability guidelines Tbennert (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of notability, lack of reliable sources. 87.194.106.22 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's no inline citations, and, of the three external links, one's to the product's website and two are to Spanish-language reviews of the service. Furthermore, it seems to fail WP:GNG. Tapped-out (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This looks like more of a proposition than something which has attained notability, and the coverage available online (a couple of blogs entries; an Indiegogo campaign) reflects that. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Want One of Those[edit]

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

Not notable. Coverage is shallow and awards minor. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator --Ysangkok (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These sources rather support my view that the coverage is shallow, e.g. they have bought a new computer, a review of their website and another firm has got their advertising account. It's not The Financial Times is it? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above were found from my initial source searches. Perhaps you should search for more, or just critique the ones that others provide instead? Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:48, 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) 19:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Ell[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. No indications that this musician has achieved any of the milestones listed at WP:MUSIC. No indications of any significant coverage needed for WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article asserts no claim of the subject's notability. N4 (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage at Billboard [49][50][51] and Allmusic [52] is enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1. Gong show 20:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per evident Billboard coverage. satisfying MUSICBIO.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:47, 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. None of the Keep voters have shown a reasonble refutation of the nomination Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misee Harris[edit]

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

A press release, based on press release and tabloid journalism. PRWeb is actually used as a source, and the Huffington Post can sometimes be not much better. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Review of article's sources (none of which were formatted correctly, incidentally):
1. iVillage - online magazine of limited interest (younger adult women)
2. The Grio - self-admitted "niche audience"
3. The Huffington Post -
This reference actually comes from the "Black Voices" division of the newspaper, itself a portion of the multicultural division, not the main newspaper-- I see this as being sufficiently targeted to make it an item of limited interest/ audience. 4. CORE Magazine - online magazine targeted at young African American women ages 12-18
5. Daily Entertainment News - Magazine that seems to be as critical as The Star or Entertainment Weekly, difficult to claim it is a reputable source
6. iReport - Personally, I think that an iReport should never be allowed as a source. iReports are written by the general public, and have no editorial oversight. This might as well be a Facebook page.
7. Florida Courier - Paper of limited circulation (African Americans within the state of Florida.
8. This "source" is a mention of her having donated money for a worthy cause on the web page of that cause. Is not a reference from any kind of news source.
9. This reference is to her official web site. Not a source of reliable information, probably should not be within the article anywhere except the External Links section.
10. Columbia Daily Herald - Another paper of limited local circulation (African Americans in central Tennessee).
11. World Hair Extensions - A news source of limited interest and circulation, and with limited or no editorial oversight
12. PR Web - this is a mention in passing, not an article about her.
13. HLNtv - With its self-described focus on "the 'must-see, must-share' stories of the day", this does not appear to be a reputable news source, only a center for news regurgitation. It's partners are The Gloss and Entertainment Weekly, neither of which is considered much of a reputable news source.
14. WetPaint - this is a website driven by social media like Facebook and Twitter. Not reputable news source.
15. This reference from VIBE Vixen looks like a personal's ad, not a news article. Does not confer notability.
16. Uptown Magazine - Magazine of limited circulation and interest (affluent African Americans living in New York City & environs)
17. Madame Noire - online magazine targeted at black women, focused on reality TV, gossip, etc. Not a reputable source of information
18. Jezebel - Twerking, selvies, Beiber, and more. Not reputable, doesn't want to become that anyway.
In short: I see a lot of mentions in contexts of gossip news and limited interest, and in contexts of broader interest and serious inquiry, only with limited circulation/ audience-- so far. If she goes on to become the first African-American bachlorette or something similar, she will probably warrant a full article; until then, I do not see a case for it given what the article has for sources as outlined above. KDS4444^Talk 07:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a person who is trying to gain notability, but she is still in the press release stage. She may achieve here goals, but she clearly has not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since when having a limited publication or limited audience makes a publication, website or magazine an unreliable source?

All these sources are legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.111.216 (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adequate number of publications to show notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --BiH (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty marginal notability, entirely constructed by her PR flacks (aside from the occasional bona-fide edit to strip the junk). I'd have AFDed it myself if I'd realised at the time she never actually _was_ the first black Bachelorette; I left it because I thought that was her claim to notability. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added and deleted some contents and references in the page as per some observations found here for making it more compatible to Wikipedia. It would be considered now as a notable one. Reviewhome (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Reviewhome has no undeleted edits that aren't to Misee Harris. Some COI, perhaps? Pinkbeast (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure publicity,. no notable accomplishements. Trivial or PR referecings. WP is not a tabloid.I would have reaerded this as clear enough for ap rod, and surprised there is opposition. DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:, aren't you the nominator? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking sufficient reliable sources. I will grudgingly admit that The NY Daily News counts as a reliable source, and about the same for the Huffington Post, but overall, the reference list looks like a desperate attempt to find every possible scrap of notability and hope it somehow adds up to passing WP:GNG. It doesn't. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 8 March 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 / 00:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Brandt[edit]

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

Two entries, neither of which are called 'Adam Brandt'. Boleyn (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per proposer. Admiral Caius (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plausible typo for either of the names, so would be perfectly OK as a redirect to either. This dab page offers a choice of the two plausible targets, does no harm, and may well help readers or editors making either mistake. Any editor linking to it will be alerted to the fact by the bot which chases up links to dab pages (forgotten name for the moment), and will know to fix it. PamD 13:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen a page that essentially just consisted of a See also section. I wish, in the spirit of WP:TWODABS, we could just pick one to redirect this to. Of two, Adam Bandt seems the better choice; "Brandt" is a common enough surname, whereas I don't think I've ever seen "Bandt" before. At that point, a hatnote to Adam Brand almost looks silly, though.

I really wish there were just a notable Adam Brandt we could write about. This Stanford professor is somewhat promising but may not meet WP:ACADEMIC. There's a college football player who could work if he goes pro, but that's a couple years away at best. And there's a British linguist, but he's less likely to meet ACADEMIC than the American. I'm tempted to just add a line to the effect of "Adam Brandt, a defensive end for the Southern Illinois Salukis football team, but without a mention of him there, that doesn't seem right either. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm wary to link to list articles, but I can't find any guidelines against the entry: Adam Brandt, American football player on List of 2004 Seattle Mariners draft picks. There is also Adam R. Brandt, who appears in the references section of 2 or 3 articles, e.g.g Alberta Taciuk process, but I can't see how that could be made a valid entry. Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to propose as a rule, do not stretch similarities beyond the breaking point to justify having a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 19:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:41, 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) 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mars One (Canada)[edit]

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mars One (U.S.): A list of candidates at this early stage of the programme is simply not notable. Mars One is nowhere near ready to fly - if it ever does - and this is not the final list of people who will fly on it just people who have got to the next stage of the application process. W. D. Graham 19:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article content is not about any notable people. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a self-popularization platform. There are around 75 applicants from Canada selected for Round 2 of Mars One. All of them obviously can not, and should not, be listed in an encyclopedia, just for this achievement. Rounds 3 and 4 are still left. The final 40 or so candidates selected (from all over the world) at the end of Round 4, should be listed. And that information will be available in 2015 or later.--Sarthak Sharma (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A list of people who actually go on the project, if and when it actually happens, would be notable — but a list of candidates at this stage of the process is not notable, especially given the surprisingly large number of people on this list for whom we don't even have a surname. It's also worth noting that the creator seems to have created this and the US sibling as standalone lists only after failing to win a reversion war over having the names listed directly in Mars One itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its a case of WP:TOOSOON Unatnas1986 (talk) 16:54, 26 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flight RFL111[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Unremarkable aircraft crash. TheLongTone (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The crash was widely related by international media: Fox News, ABC News, Washington Post. The poor management of the search and rescue operation had implications in many institutions (the Interior Minister Radu Stroe resigned, the head of ROMATSA was dismissed, the head of IGSU also resigned). Razvan Socol (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Any event nowadays gets "widely related" coverage - the key is WP:PERSISTENCE. Now, the aftermath may rise to the level where this is a notable accident, but the breadth-of-coverage in our electronic era cannot be assumed to imply notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A rather poor argument as none of that is in the article!!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, they do not need to be, they only need to exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tragic but not notable non-commercial flight....William 12:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No likely lasting notability.--Charles (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for Romanian people. Luckily, there are very few crashes in the country's history--Hequba (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Razvan Socol's cogent points. Many English-language sources also support the statement that this crash has had substantial political repercussions [53][54][55].--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wide media coverage. NickSt (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject. Terraflorin (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really sad, but no lasting impact; a private light aircraft crash in mountains with an old plane is not too surprising. Leondz (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although not intrinsically a notable crash, its impact in terms of changing air legislation and disaster response has been significant and will be lasting. Leondz (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad for the family and friends of the two persons killed, but there is no attempt in the article to demonstrate why there will be any lasting WP:EFFECT therefore it fails the WP:NOTNEWS policy. LGA _talk^edits 03:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This crash led to the resignation of the interior minister Radu Stroe (see refs 13 and 14 in that article) which clearly demonstrates lasting significance. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you have any refs in English for this? Leondz (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not personally, although I've not spent any significant time looking. Arxiloxos lists three above though, and anyway references not in English are perfectly fine (see WP:NONENG]). Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English language sources here, here andhere: this material should be included in the article, because they make a clear case for this crash being of lasting interest.TheLongTone (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- should we try to cover every airplane crash? No. Are some people here arguing we shouldn't cover this crash because we haven't covered every crash? Irrelevant. There is no point trying to cover crashes which lack coverage in RS. There is no point regretting not covering some crashes, when they just don't trigger the attention of a contributor willing to start the article. But, crashes that are covered by RS, and where contributors have drafted a neutrally written article that uses those RS, I see no reason to delete those.
If, as claimed above for this crash, it has been suggested the crash will trigger policy changes -- that is a strong argument for retention. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leondz' last edit to the article, highlighting the political upheaval the crash has caused, has made it easy to see that the GNG are met. YSSYguy (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The accident had important political consequences in Romania. But the main significance, at European level, is about to fail the 112 emergency number in case of search and rescue [56], and the lack of response from International Cospas-Sarsat Programme. --Turbojet (talk) 09:12, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tuas Road[edit]

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

Notability of subject is not established Flat Out let's discuss it 06:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's a road, it probably exists, but there is nothing here to show any notability. (Nor anything except the navbox to give the reader a clue as to where this road is, unless they follow the one blue link). PamD 23:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability.--Charles (talk) 10:49, 1 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIDE Federations Rankings[edit]

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

Article is outdated, and nobody seems motivated to bring it up to date. Information is available at the FIDE website anyway, and wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Always already out of date WP:TRIVIA that makes no claim as to why it should exist as a stand-alone list. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the ones above. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 00:06, 26 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) — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 14:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Captivity of Kodavas at Seringapatam[edit]

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

Appears to be a POV fork from Persecution of Hindus, but it is OR. Unless a subjugated population are captives? And none of the sources seem to be any good. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same as in the case of the captivity of Nairs article, this article also needs a cleanup. It speaks about events where a people, called Coorgs in some sources, were captured in a time frame and it also seems to have been independent of the Persecution of Hindus article. Again Seringapatam is an archaic misspelling.Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have split the article into two sections: on Hyder Ali and on Tipu Sultan. Also I have included material on the captivity of the Coorgs (Kodavas) in Seringapatam from Punganuri, a JSTOR related secondary non-colonial source written in 1849. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I have added some more related info from Punganuri and another secondary source JSTOR material, a paper in the Mysore University Journal by a professor of the Department of History.Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Added material from Moegling's book which is another JSTOR secondary source Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, the article relies almost exclusively on two books, one written in 1849 and the other written in 1855, what on earth makes you think these are RS? Darkness Shines (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moegling (1855) is a majority view on Coorgs while Punganuri (1849) is a majority view on the Mysore Sultans. Both are secondary sources and are relatively more moderate in opinion then other sources. Punganuri is oft quoted for its very conservative number of Coorg (Kodava) converts mentioned (500) while Moegling's work, which speaks of at least one instance of invasions by both Hindus and Muslims on temples, is most often referred with regard to the history of Coorgs. Even Richter's more popular Gazetteer of Coorg (1870) and B L Rice's later works on Coorgs are based on what Moegling wrote from other sources. Hence both are RS. Meanwhile, I am looking out for more majority views as well as a significant number of minority views have already been expressed. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made some more editing and added matter from a RS (Mohibbul Hassan, a scholarly secondary source approved by scholars such as Irfan Habib) Hassan, who has also referred Moegling and Punganuri, is also a majority view and moderate in opinion. Hassan is widely cited with regard to Tipu. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about actual captives who were deported and held. There are in fact already some verified sources (like C. Hayavadana Rao, Bowring, N. Shyam Bhat and others) used. One can find many more (like Kirmani, Kirkpatrick and others) to support this. There is no source which denies the captivity of the Coorgs/ Kodavas under Tipu Sultan. So this article is not OR or POV. I suggest that DS remove the proposed deletion tag soon. Thanks Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and encyclopedic. The article was there since 2009 and now suddenly why this AFD discussion? We may keep the article. I also politely like to point out that it appears that there is no POV issue in this article.Rayabhari (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly think books from 1849 and 1855 are RS? The sources are junk. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Punganuri (1849) and Moegling (1855) are definitely not junk as demonstrated by the fact that historians like Mohibbul Hassan and others refer to them. They are RS because they both are "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And when they refer to them, do they say, hell ya, this stuff is spot on? I doubt it, I will bet ten to the pound that they attribute it as those sources are not even remotely reliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan and the others don't dispute the captivity of the Kodavas, the Nairs or Christians in Srirangapatna. But what is disputed is the actual number of people involved. Hassan and others have quoted from these sources in their books. The smallest number quoted is 500, as stated by Punganuri while the largest number quoted is 85,000 as stated by B L Rice. So hence both ends of the range are mentioned. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is significant enough I don't think it warrants AFD. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article has multiple sources and loads of citations. It may rely too heavily on certain sources. However it is certainly NOT WP:OR. The question of how reliable the underlying sources are may well be a controversial question, but it is one to be argued out between academics. Doing so within WP would itself be a form of WP:OR. I am not convinced that the title of the article is an ideal one, but that is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like the article Captivity of Nairs at Seringapatam I suspect that the nom's ground for proposing deletion of this article as well is "IDONOTLIKEIT". About the title, Coorgs was the name given to the Kodavas during the British Raj, they are the same. Edit it if required. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 08:16, 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 delete. The Delete rationales are not refuted Black Kite (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ferenc Miskolczi[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources. Low H-index. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 6 not sufficient for WP:Prof#C1. Climate change stuff is WP:BLP1E. Does not pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change is not an event it is a topic. That criterion is to stop people having an article on themselves when they could be covered quite adequately in an article about the event. And I'm currently disputing the proposer's notion of what a reliable source is elsewhere, do you think there are no reliable sources there? Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The event is, presumably, Miskolczi's resignation from NASA. If I'm the proposer you mention, I'm not aware where you are having a debate with me elsewhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion on the basis of not reliable sources [57], my questioning Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Ferenc_Miskolczi. I know you think the sources fail RS, I was just wondering if the contributor thought so too. The controversy is clearly about Ferenc Miskolczi rather than just some event he was involved in. Please read WP:BLP1E it is quite short. And he's not just known for resigning. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Our article cites 4 peer-reviewed articles by Miskolczi, and two substantial news articles in RS's re the controversy over his theoretical climate model -- the latter appears to be what he's mainly known for. I'd never previously heard of him, but he would appear to meet the minimum requirements for the WP:General notability guideline: significant coverage in 2 RS's, and some evidence for prior academic( or similar) performance in Atmospheric physics. Also a rather extensive article rebutting his "Alternative Greenhouse Theory" at Real Climate, a RS for this I think. So it would appear that he is at least marginally notable. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: rebuttal paper is hosted at RC, but is by Rob van Dorland of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and Piers M. Forster of the School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 peer reviewed articles is nothing. PhD students have that. News is related to one event, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:GNG. One event is all it takes for notability, if the other criteria are met. As they seem to be in this case. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:BLP1E is specifically for showing that one event does not make a person notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You stuck that reply in the wrong place. One event can make a person notable, BLP1e says that they should not have an article separately from the event if they are only notable in connection with the event and did not play a major part. There is no separate event article as this covers their resignation, they did play a major part in their own resignation and the article isn't about just that one event. Quoting BLP1E is just wrong here. Perhaps you misread the each as any in 'when each of three conditions is met'? Dmcq (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Coverage is only in the context of the event. 2. low profile individual 3. The event is not significant. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone claims this guy is outstandingly notable. But he does seem to meet the minimum WP:General notability guideline, and your counter arguments appear unconvincing. WP:BLP1E clearly doesn't apply, as noted above. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also a rather extensive article rebutting his "Alternative Greenhouse Theory" at Real Climate - I notice that you carefully avoid linking to the claimed article; I don't think there is one on the RC blog. You're perhaps mistaking it for an entry on the much-less-notable RC wiki? [58] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Tillman was referring to this PDF. Jinkinson talk to me 15:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable, it has nothing to do with RC. I think its more likely he was desperately scrabbling for something that made FM look notable William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me more like you are desperately reaching..... Pete Tillman (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xxanthippe, and the fact that the news coverage doesn't even come close to meeting WP:GNG. -- 101.119.29.3 (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per hus being mentioned in A Short Introduction to Climate Change Cambridge University Press. Mathematics, Applied Science and Real Life Springer. He is also author and co author of a few books. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in a book doesn't fulfil WP:GNG and the mention itself is related to one event. Further, what part of WP:AUTHOR are you claiming they fulfil? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep going on about "one event"? Please rereread WP:GNG, which makes clear that one event can suffice for Wiki-notability. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E. "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when ... reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event ... That person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. .... the event is not significant". These three conditions are met with respect to his leaving NASA. Second Quantization (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But also read WP:SINGLEEVENT, which is more nuanced. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like he's a poster-boy for the climate change denialists. If kept, much of it should be rewritten from independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tons of hits on Google Books that pan out when you read them and verify the publisher, definitely passes GNG. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS. You haven't distinguished between non-significant mentions, the WP:BLP1E mentions or otherwise, Second Quantization (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His mainstream scientific contributions do not have the impact (e.g. citation counts) to pass WP:PROF and his climate change sideline does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:55, 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) 19:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Stebic[edit]

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

Standard missing person case with no claim of notability. News coverage does not imply notability, as almost all missing person cases end up in the news. No changes to laws or procedures as a result of this case, another criteria that is used to determine notability. Over 2000 people are reported missing every day in the United States alone, can anyone prove why this case is an exception with encyclopedic notability. Dmol (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No idea what the nominator means by "standard missing person case." This 2007 disapearance satisfies WP:N via significant coverage in numerous reliable and independent sources, The coverage was over an extended period, with a feature on the CNN Nancy Grace show in 2012 [59], with a long article in the Chicago Sun times in 2012 [60] and 2013 [61] as well as renewed focus by prosecutors in 2013 [62] so it satisfies WP:NOTNEWS as being more than a sad case which got a big splash of coverage in one news cycle. See the numerous references included with the article, and then click on the Google book link above to see several books with some coverage stating it was a major case in Chicago, and at least one with a paragraph on the case:[63], . A major case in Chicago, with lots of newsworthy developments beyond the initial disappearance, such as what happened to reporter Amy Jacobson. Edison (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:N. Subject has recieved coverage with independent and reliable sources. And over an extended period of time.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is at best notability for one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. -- GreenC 04:57, 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) 01:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Guinchard[edit]

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

Delete. I prodded this and quite rightly another good faith editor removed the Prod saying it should be improved rather than deleted (to paraphrase that editor). In my opinion since all the sources are WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, and the person is not WP:N (although may meet WP:PROF, it is hard to tell through all the vermicelli), the article is a WP:RESUME and basically unintelligible to an audience who cannot back translate it into French; for which the article at FR:WP will suffice. It is a tar pit. It contravenes WP:MOS in so many ways that it were better deleted and recreated as a decent stub. It is also WP:COPYVIO for not having a tag on the discussion page saying it is a translation (bit by bit) from French Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "all the sources are WP:PRIMARY". Could you explain why that's true of the Gindre book?

The article does appear to be a translation of the article on the French Wikipedia. I've gone ahead and added ((Translated page)) to provide attribution. —rybec 20:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been appointed Commandeur of the Ordre des Palmes Académiques, which I would say satisfies criterion #1 of WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, this is the highest grade of this order. Since we consider that Commanders of the Order of the British Empire do satisfy WP:ANYBIO I think it might be considered a little discriminatory not to consider that an equivalent rank in a French order (which, unlike the Order of the British Empire, doesn't have any higher grades) also satisfies the criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Has made little impact as a jurist as judged from GS cites. If not delete then stubbify as article is verbose and promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Horrendous overly detailed article. Most honors listed are nothing special and not even worth mentioning. However, if good sources can be found for the decorations (Knight of the Legion of Honor, Officer of the National Order of Merit, and Commander of the Ordre des Palmes académiques), then this would obviously meet WP:ANYBIO. --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two honours are probably too low to qualify alone, but the third is almost certainly high enough, and the combination of the three definitely makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The book with the list of 2003/2004 Commanders is 160 euros.[64] There is a list at frWiki, which claims to use that printed source, and has the BLP.[65] Do we trust the frWiki editor, or should we maybe use WP:RX to verify the listing? Here is the website of the award,[66] which is in French. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Xxanthippe mentioned google-scholar being "too low" to justify impact as a jurist. Methinks this metric has to be judged (nudge nudge wink wink) based on the field of inquiry. This guy had a reasonably complete career writing legal papers, from his PhD in the 1970s through 2009 that I noticed. But his main work is reference-books, with thousands of pages and a dozen editions. He started doing that in the 1974/1981 era, with his Termes Juridiques and then Procédure civile.

Specialist-reference, Procédure civile (Civil Procedure), 63 cites (102 total across all editions) from 1981-2010, in French/Chinese, 30 editions.

Specialist-reference, Droit processuel (Procedure Law), 19 cites (42 total across all editions) from 2001-2013, French, 1400 pages, 7 editions.

Specialist-reference, Procédure pénale (Criminal Procedure), 31 cites (31 total across all editions) from ~2005(2010)-2013, French, 9 editions.

Specialist-dictionary, Termes Juridiques (Legal Terms), 15 cites (21 total across all editions) from ~1974(2001)-2013, in French/Japanese/Spanish/Portuguese, 21 editions.

Specialist-text, Institutions judiciaires (Judicial institutions), 3 cites (7 total across all editions) from ~1995(2003)-2009, in French/Chinese, 10 editions.

Papers in the 2000s, L'ambition raisonnée d'une justice apaisée, 7 cites (33 across all papers).

Papers in the 1990s, Droit et pratique des voies d'exécution, 5 cites (34 across all papers).

Papers in the 1980s, Droit patrimonial de la famille au Sénégal, 8 cites (8 across all papers).

Papers in the 1970s, L'affectation des biens en droit privé français, 8 cites (22 across all papers).

Outside of the raw cite-counts above (102/42/31/21/7 plus 33/34/8/22), he was on university law-faculties for 39 years, 1969-2007 at Lyon2/Lyon3/DakarU/PantheonAssas. He was dean of the faculty for 6 years at Lyon3, and was an administrator at a few places outside the universities. As others have noticed, he won some reasonably hefty awards. All this, in combination, seems pretty wikiNotable. Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia, folks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which categories of WP:Prof and WP:GNG does this affect? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:PROF, WP:ANYBIO - WP:AFD n'est pas le cleanup. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- in addition to the Commander of the Ordre des Palmes académiques, there's a Festschrift in his honor -- that's generally enough to put a case over the top. CS cites woe someone who worked in the 70s or 80s in a field and language where GS does not index well are not really relevant. 30 editions of a book IS what is relevant. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:53, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of people assassinated by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna[edit]

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

This list was created in good faith following a Cfd but only duplicates content from List of assassinations of the Second JVP Insurrection which provides a list of assassinations during the 2nd JVP Insurrection. Having a separate article for assassinations by the JVP looks like a WP:POVFORK. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. After the closure of the CFD discusison by another admin, I created this list to implement the CFD consensus that information in the category was better presented as a list. I have no expertise I the topic or particular interest in it, so I don't know whether the pre-existing list does the job better. However, if this list is to be deleted, then:

editors should first check that the topics in it are included in the other list. (Rex De Costa is currently missing)
It should be replaced with a redirect to List of assassinations of the Second JVP Insurrection

(Thanks to the nominator for notifying me of this discussion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rex De Costa was assassinated during the 1971 JVP Insurrection and as such falls outside the scope of the List of assassinations of the Second JVP Insurrection.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other list he could be included in? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is listed under the Notable people killed section of the 1971 JVP Insurrection article. The list only has two entries and as such doesn't warrant a separate list.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:RELART & the decision of CFD discusison to delete the related category and listify. This list contains useful information about the Terrorism and JVP. Since the category is already deleted, the presence of this article will be highly important and convenient for the readers who are interested in the subject. -- Shehanw (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely per WP:RELART.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 1 March 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) 16:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of people assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam[edit]

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

This list was created in good faith following a Cfd but only duplicates content from List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War which provides a comprehensive list of assassinations during the civil war. Having a separate article for assassinations by the LTTE looks like a WP:POVFORK. This was the conclusion of a previous Afd. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. After the closure of the CFD discusison by another admin, I created this list to implement the CFD consensus that information in the category was better presented as a list. I have no expertise I the topic or particular interest in it, so I don't know whether the pre-existing list does the job better. However, if this list is to be deleted, then:

editors should first check that all the topics in it are included in the other list.
It should be replaced with a redirect to List of assassinations of the Second JVP Insurrection

(Thanks to the nominator for notifying me of this discussion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are three articles currently not on List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War: Ivan Boteju, Gopalaswamy Mahendraraja and Lucky Wijayaratne.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will oppose deletion unless that is remedied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added all three to List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:RELART & the decision of CFD discusison to delete the related category and listify. This list contains useful information about the Terrorism and LTTE. Since the category is already deleted, the presence of this article will be highly important and convenient for the readers who are interested in the subject. -- Shehanw (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELART only applies where there significant amount of information in common with one another. This doesn't apply here because all the information in List of people assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam is contained in List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. There is no original content in List of people assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The Cfd decision to listify was made without the knowledge that there already existed a list with the information - List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. I'm afraid your reasons for wanting this list were the same ones which resulted in the category being deleted.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the reasons I have given above, can't see any reason to delete this page per WP:GNG & WP:LISTN. LTTE killed many people who were not related to the civil war such as clergy, teachers and doctors. The assassination of the chief priest of Dimbulagala temple, Kithalagama Seelalankara Thera is a good example. Can't agree with your comment about the CFD decision and original content of this article, because you have not verified your claims. --Shehanw (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since the List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War currently contains the assassinations of Ivan Boteju, Gopalaswamy Mahendraraja and Lucky Wijayaratne, WP:RELART is not applicable here.Lapmaster (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name of former mayor of Jaffna, Alfred Duraiappah, who was assassinated by LTTE a decade before the civil war, is also listed under the List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War ???, WP:RELART can be applied here to correct these errors in that list and make it a real list of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. -- 112.135.81.111 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though he was murdered a decade before the fully fledged Civil War, his murder is mentioned in the Sri Lankan Civil War.Lapmaster (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:RELART. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rationale supports your WP:RELART?Lapmaster (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:RELART. The same rationale that supports WP:RELART with Wolf attacks can be applied in this case too. A similar situation exists with these two stand alone lists, List of wolf attacks and List of wolf attacks in North America - LahiruG^talk 05:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen a wrong example for comparison which doesn't address the concern of WP:POVFORK.Lapmaster (talk) 15:07, 4 March 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) 04:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Asian-Oceanian Neuroscience Societies[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. We have a minor society, which sponsors some conferences and publishes their proceedings, but is not the subject of any independent coverage whatsoever. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete all I found was confirmation it held symposia but nothing on its history or third party sources. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Its not notable. Fails WP:GNG.Unatnas1986 (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nominator Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:52, 1 March 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 / 00:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Society for Computing and Technology in Anesthesia and Intensive Care[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. There seems to be no independent coverage of this organization. Yes, they sponsor meetings, and yes, papers from those meetings are published in the proceedings, but no one has written anything about the organization itself. Note that most coverage spells "Anesthesia" in the British manner, as "Anaesthesia," so this should be taken into account when searching for sources. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete could not find coverage outside medical articles, needs some mainstream coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:34, 28 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) 20:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Rhinologic Society[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG badly. I can find no independent coverage of this organization. It's possible there are sources in Bulgarian, but I doubt it. There's nary a mention in English language independent sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the articles listed here (by me and Randykitty) and here (by January), this is part of a spam/promotion related to OMICS. All of them should probably be deleted; they are also likely candidates for recreation by sock puppets. --JBL (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems to be a decent society. They were probably a bit naive in partnering with OMICS. The OMICS journal that they partnered with is absolutely not notable. The journal Rhinology that was mentioned in the article is notable, but there is no link apparent with this society. The website does not give an idea how large this society is, but Bulgaria is not a large country and this is a minor medical specialty, so probably the society is quite small. No independent references. I have stubbified the article, just in case it would be kept. --Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Randy. I'd be happy to reconsider if more referenced material can be provided. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:13, 2 March 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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ann (Taiwanese singer)[edit]

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

No secondary sources fails WP:MUSIC. (PROD removed without providing a source.) Widefox; talk 01:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to anything notable in the article and no sources. How do you even look for sources for someone known only by one of the most common first names for women in the English language? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment — leaning toward~~ keep. According to the Chinese Wikipedia article, she was a finalist for a Golden Melody Award for new artist, and won a similar award in Singapore. I cannot verify the Golden Melody finalist status right now (official governmental Web site is inaccessible at the moment, perhaps due to international bandwidth issues, which is not uncommon), but the Chinese Wikipedia article is detailed enough that it appears to show notability and does not appear to be a hoax. It is also consistent with the Chinese Wikipedia article on the new artist category at Golden Melody. (See zh:最佳新人獎 (金曲獎).) --Nlu (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Governmental site is still inaccessible, but there are plenty of news articles out there confirming status. See, e.g., [67]. The Google search to verify this would be for 金曲獎 and 白安. --Nlu (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 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 no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Cool Aid Society[edit]

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

promotional overdetailed articles about Local charity in small city--no more general impact Sources are press releases or local uncritical sources. . Accepted from afc nonetheless. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have done a major clean up on the article, removing extraneous and promotional material. The sources left appear to be mostly stories in the local media that cover the organization. I think there is now sufficient in depth coverage from WP:RS sources to meet WP:N. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Established in 1968; running for almost 50 years is a pretty good length for this sort of organization. "Longevity" is listed as additional criteria under WP:NONPROFIT. --Lquilter (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 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 no consensus. The argument essentially boils down to whether this is a high school or not. There has been no coherent discussion after 3 listing periods to determine if it is or not. Therefore, I see no other option than "no consensus". (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chandraprabha Vidyapitha, Paksey[edit]

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

Article appears to be about a non-secondary educational institution with no claim to notability. There are no sources cited. Hopelessly promotional. PROD was removed w/o explanation or improvement. Ad Orientem (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a high school, also seems to be a notable one in Ishwardi Upazila as it's government portal describes it here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 19:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary schools are notable by long-standing consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Reign in Hell: The Exile of Khan Noonien Singh[edit]

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

While I am generally in favour of inclusion, I don't see any evidence that this book is any more notable than 1000 other Star Trek novels. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I'd like to think it's possible to find reliable sources that have discussed the book, but I'm not in a position to look myself. DonIago (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge: I do believe that Greg Cox's first two volumes of this trilogy are notable enough for inclusion. However, it is possible that this book isn't notable enough for its own article. In that case I think the information in this article should be merged with The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh. This novel could have a subsection and this page could be redirected to that. Johnred32 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 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 no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh[edit]

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

While I am generally in favour of inclusion, I don't see any evidence that this book is any more notable than 1000 other Star Trek novels. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My biggest argument for inclusion of this article is the fact that the novels are discussed in the Director's Edition DVD features for The Wrath of Khan, making them more notable than the just any old Star Trek novel. The books - not "book," as the article is about both volumes 1 and 2 - have received critical acclaim, as shown by the reviews in the article. On Greg Cox's page it states that the first book was awarded Sci-Fi Book of the Year by Dreamwatch magazine. This article has been here for 6 years and has achieved "Start" class, much more than can be said for most Star Trek novels on Wikipedia that are barely stubs. Johnred32 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redesdale Studios[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Junipers[edit]

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

The group is not notable according to WP:BAND or WP:GNG. The was previously raised in 2009 on the talk page: Talk:The Junipers. The article is unverified, the proposed sources on the talk page are not reliable, independent secondary sources and fail to establish why the band is notable. WP:DEL#REASON 7. The subjects fits WP:GARAGE and doesn't seem to belong here at this time. N4 (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Allmusic bio is fine as a source and indicates that the band received further coverage in magazines such as Uncut and Record Collector, and they also recorded sessions for BBC radio. --Michig (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The act of being on Allmusic does not make an act notable and neither does appearing on BBC radio- there are many BBC radio shows featuring largely non-notable musicians. The band does not meet criteria 2 - 10 of WP:BAND and makes no claim to meet criteria 11 or 12 either. As for the first criteria, they're sole claim consists of a review in Uncut and Record Collector, not a feature, a review which in the case of Uncut likely consists of a rating and a one-sentence summary. These are very trivial publications and do not establish notability. The bottom line is we have an article about a WP:GARAGE band that's been around for 14 years yet shows no media coverage in non-trivial sources in the first five pages of a google search for "The Junipers" or "The Junipers band". The article is poorly written (with a very high level of name dropping, as though to somehow elevate the subject beyond they're true notability) that, with a copy edit, would consist of very little content with a discernible purpose. Further to the verifiability issues, the page-starter and core content contributors are all inexperienced editors and possibly biased editors (WP:AUTOBIO). The band isn't notable. I don't see how you can argue otherwise. All the best. N4 (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Allmusic bio is not trivial, and until we find the coverage from Uncut and Record Collector we won't know whether that is trivial - there are some reviews reproduced at [68] - some are short but this is not trivial coverage. The band recorded a session for Marc Riley's BBC 6 Music show - sessions are not generally by non-notable artists. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AMRI Global[edit]

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

Many press releases, but no significant accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tré Melvin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

no indication of meeting WP:GNG. previously deleted as unremarkable. Still so. John from Idegon (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was also a version at AfC I deleted it as an unnecessary duplicate, as it makes more sense to discuss the article here. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill youtube personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything to show he meets the notability guidelines.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:20, 3 March 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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Hitchings[edit]

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

Per, WP:MUSICBIO, I'm not seeing multiple, independent published works that have Hitchings as their subject. References come directly from her band's website or from blog posts on prog rock fan sites. The only coverage that I think is notable is in relation to her current band Landmarq. The other current members of Landmarq do not have their own pages, and it isn't clear why Hitchings gets her own. Perhaps the page's content can be merged into that page instead of completely deleting. MikeMan67 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 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. This one's tricky. Arguments raised: fails specific notability for porn actors (PORNBIO) as they have not received any actual awards, hall-of-fame inductions, groundbreaking starring roles, or features in mainstream media; WP:BLP1E and/or WP:ONEEVENT for role in a scandal; failure of general notability guideline (GNG) otherwise. The subject's actual role in the event, as covered in the sources, was in passing and/or via hearsay (i.e., someone claimed she said something or claimed that it happened because it would end up on her website). Coupled with the fact that the actual controversy and/or relative notability of it is predominantly over two completely separate people's actions, its relationship to establishing the notability of the subject should, at best, only be weighted as equally as an in-passing mention with regard to application of the WP:GNG, which, as an in-passing mention, would be insufficient to establish notability. On top of that, the spirit of the biographies of living persons policy is to avoid doing harm, and if the sole fall-back of notability is realistically this event—that is, having an alleged, in-passing part in something scandalous happening to a famous CEO because of some other actress—it's furthermore argued that this independent biography would encourage the opposite thereof. Arguments given for keep failed to address these issues with policy and guideline-based rationales to the contrary. slakr^\ talk / 01:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity St. Clair[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. Little reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough coverage by reliable soures to satisfy the GNG on my end. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails PORNBIO. Fails GNG as the she recieves merely a passing mention in the LA Times & New York Post articles. Finnegas (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morbidthoughts. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite detailed start class article. Cavarrone 08:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm bothered by the extent to which the desire to keep this article about an otherwise non-notable porn performer is leading to increasingly detailed COATRACKing of articles related to a notable, but not widely known to the public, movie industry figure. Key elements of the associated scandal have never been reliably confirmed as factual (although a very plausible case has been established). In the nine months or so since the scandal broke, the (sex-related) details of the scandal were excluded from the article, with BLP issues raised -- but over the last two weeks editors pushing to keep this porn performer article have been adding reported (but never quite confirmed) details of the scandal to various articles (sometimes with the never-quite-confirmed details presented as established facts.) I believe the longstanding treatment of the matter was more sensitive to BLP policy principles and more appropriate, and that those concerns should not be outweighed by the desire to have articles about the porn performers involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern appears to be misplaced since the information you allege is "coatracking" was only added after verifiable sources were found and cited. This article did not start with it. Since you and others have been in recent months challenging the notability of specifically porn performer articles and suggesting their deletion, this has lead to myself and others to begin digging for more sourced information which in many cases we have found. So in a sense, thank you for helping the dedicated few of us to improve so many porn related articles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Cavaronne and Morbidthoughts. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO and then standing on its on lack of WP:GNG merits, it also fails. 101.166.130.157 (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)— 101.166.130.157 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, needs clean-up and expansion, but meets GNG. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Comment - This discussion here is apparently now under discussion here at BLP/N. Guy1890 (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, porno actress in lot of films Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does appearing "in a lot of films" make her notable? Certainly does not help her pass either of WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. Finnegas (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Morbidthoughts and Cavarrone, two editors who i have had disagreements with in the past, but who I acknowledge to be perhaps the only WP users who have demonstrated that they are neither anti-porn nor pro-porn, but reasonable and unbiased. St. Clair does indeed pass the GNG, a guideline which is held in high regard on WP and has even been used as an excuse to depreciate PORNBIO. Several users masking their WP:COI by citing WP:IAR among other excuses have actually managed to get articles on porn stars who pass the GNG deleted as well (e.g. Luscious Lopez & The Love twins). WP's thriving anti-porn movement continues to be the elephant in the room. The recent mass deletions/PROD's/AfD's of porn biographies are proof of it. As mentioned above, this discussion has been taken to BLP/N, possibly out of fear for the projected "keep" or "no consensus" outcome. Rebecca1990 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice amount of secondary source coverage and also awards. — Cirt (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Now wins means there are no awards to count. Nominations are no longer valid grounds to keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a pornstar - fails PORNBIO and the scandal is BLP1E for her even if the coverage reaches the GNG. Any coverage on wikipedia should be on the blokes article only to avoid UNDUE. Lots of non-policy based keep votes here that should be discarded in the close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A quick summary of the proceedings thus far...

This AfD for was started on Feb 14 by Hullaballo Wolfowitz
Shortly thereafter the article has been expanded to include additional industry information as well as content covered by the mainstream press
This AfD has been relisted twice to gain more discussion
The article has roughly doubled in size since its creation 4 months ago

Additionally...

This performer is fairly new (since 2012)
She's already gained nominations (yes, I know they don't count officially) for major awards
She's already made mainstream appearances
Her involvement in the Nanula scandal has made her at the least not just "another anonymous porn star".

Saying right now that she is non-notable just seems premature given what we have for such a short, initial career. By the way, it seems curious that we have 17 distinct authors on this AfD discussion, but only 8 that have actually edited the article. Its too bad that its not the reverse.

That said, if those involved in this discussion feel that WP will be greatly improved by a strict adherence to policy and the deletion of this article, so be it. But there are other articles (porn and otherwise) that are likely more deserving of our time and attention.

How about we just close this as unresolved and give it 6-12 months? Just my 2 cents... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about you don't tell the closing admin how to do their job and let them weigh the votes themselves. Basically this personal has no notability as a porn star and barely scrape the GNG if at all before we look at BLP1E. Its premature to decide if someone is non-notable is by definition an argument to delete. I do hope that no non-admin tries to close this as this is clearly DRV material and not for the fainthearted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I made a suggestion to the 17 Users who are involved in this discussion and anyone else that might be watching. What was the point of making up some nefarious intent behind my comment? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you can chill please, Scalhotrod your comment was in part shaming, in my opinion, but I feel the intent was to encourage more article improvement. Fine. let it go. You also alleged that in context of a limited career and being new, it was a decent start, that may be true, and we have thousands of much worse articles, even BLPs, but that doesn't mean this one gets a pass at meeting basic requirements. Spartaz, this again in my opinion, is pretty much split, and I see no reason a no consensus draw would not be a reasonable result. Perhaps the article is borderline but the original claims of sourcing have been addressed even if a "scandal" was a part of it, guess what scandals happen every day, and they are consider news and reported on endlessly. So stop the bickering and focus on improving articles, even this one. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Sport, thank you for your assessment. I did not intend any inference of shame, just trying to move things along in a peaceful way. I too am tired of the bickering and apologize to the group for any perceived "tone" in my response to Spartaz. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:21, 6 March 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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy deletion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bublyk Kuzma Pavlovych[edit]

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

WP:BIO --Ilyaroz (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have been a notable person in the history of Ukraine, and seems to have held an important position. However the article needs to be re-written from a neutral point of view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Owen's Lady[edit]

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

Unreleased film that doesn't appear to have been produced. No IMDB entry. All news results are speculative. I suggest this is a dead project. Parrot of Doom 12:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to say that this looks like it's dead in the water. I'd recommend redirecting it somewhere, but I can't think of a good target. I'm thinking Ali's article since Hopkins was never actually confirmed to be in the film- he was continually rumored and then suddenly it shifted to "Hopkin's film" without any actual confirmation (from what I can see). Other than Hopkins, she's one of the more frequently named actors in the film. Even then, this isn't really a good solution since you could argue that it could go to any of the SM kids. While there is coverage, I don't know that it's so heavy it could pass as one of the rare exceptions to WP:NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- The whole thing wreaks of WP:CRYSTAL. It is a screenplay that has failed to get funding. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 28 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) 01:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bolzern[edit]

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

Delete, I believe this gentlemen would fall under One Event notability, I think deletion is the way to go here, however a redirect could also be an option. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not sure how I'm supposed to edit or reply to this comment, so here goes I'm new at creating articles. The learning curve is great and I'm trying to write as quickly as possible... but a simple google search of this man will verify multiple instances and stories where he was a component of the community and the evolution of Linux. From multiple Linux-promoting ventures to community participation. The article will have plenty of content.gokevgo (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone starts somewhere, this is what I see when I search him [[69]]. Now we have guidelines about notability and from what i can tell that linux is the only reason he is notable. When this happens we do things like condense or redirect to the group, see for example Doolittle raid, most everyone that was involved does not have a separate article. If you would care to post anything that you think I've missed I'll be happy to look at and it will help when others review this. Another thought that you may wish to review WP:RS as well! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the cited article (the only one I had time to add before suggestion for deletion), he's listed as number 3 to a [Linus Torvalds|Linus Torvalds] as an influencer. Maybe [Linus Torvalds|Linus Torvalds] is more of an icon than the others, but he doesn't seem to even fit the criteria of being known for more than one thing. Should I have written more offline before trying to edit this online and paste it in? gokevgo —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are two schools to thought on that. I personally would've but that's up to your discretion. Now I understand Linux is very influential so he may squeak by and so this discussion will help. Don't be discouraged, deletion review like this gives more then just one person a chance to review, I've even had a couple of mine on here too! Just keep improving it as best you can and try and show notability. Worse comes to worse it can be moved to your sandbox to incubate it a little. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tag and give a reasonable opportunity to improve sources. That IMO is the reason for tags. Otherwise, merge to a/the relevant Linux article. Paavo273 (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep .. I'm alright with these sources, a reasonable claim to notable person in the history of Linux. -- GreenC 04:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Paavo273 and Green Cardomom. I added some to the article. --do ncr am 22:46, 26 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 / 02:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Counterinsurgency, Democracy and the Politics of Identity in India[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and I have a distinct impression that there is a conflict of interest concerning the creator, given that virtually all their edits across all articles relate to this book and its author. Sitush (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A 2013 book on this topic of a not-so-popular writer could hardly be notable this early. Someone from The Hindu has taken efforts of printing a quote that appears in this book. Even if the book is actually notable and if many other authors do take references from here in future, the notability of it might increase. As of now, its WP:TOOSOON to call it notable and warrent separate article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The book review in The Hindu linked above is the only independent, non-trivial coverage of the book I can find. The notability guideline for books requires multiple sources of such coverage. I would support recreation if and when more coverage emerges. It's a new book, so that's plausible. Userfication may be an acceptable alternative. Lagrange 613 08:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, this is little more than basic research. I'd delete per Lagrange. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 4 March 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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monsoon Films[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see that 3 new sources have been added (1, 2, 3). I'm hobbled by trying to read them using Google Translate but they appear to me to be blog posts, which we generally consider WP:QUESTIONABLE, and thus, insufficient to establish notability. I invite other comments. Msnicki (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanwla[edit]

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

No online sources that I could find--can anybody verify this? I think it looks a little fishy... Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like a non notable tribe/clan. I also couldn't find a source that verify its existence. -- SMS ^Talk 15:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agreed with Sarmad. Fai zan 15:33, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vena Kava[edit]

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

Singer in a barely notable death metal band. Cited reliable coverage (for example the two books published in 2005) seems to be about the band (the same sources are cited in the band article). The one (unsourced) claim of notability about herself is the Support, Training and Access for New Directors (STAND) grant, but I don't believe this confers notability on its own. Fails WP:GNG. Maybe it should be redirected to Killing Moon (band)? Sionk (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of references although the article needs work with formatting and toning down a bit. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References need to be reliable and about Kava don't they, rather than blogs and fansites? Of the three music books listed, one is a music-listings format and another is available online with nothing about Kava or her band. Sionk (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 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. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 16:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feni computer institute[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE: Top Google results were all either not third-party or not reliable or not significantly covering the topic. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not sure asserts credible claim to significance. Not notable. Unable to locate sourcing. Dlohcierekim 01:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:OUTCOMES, verified degree-granting institution. --Zayeem ^(talk) 19:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd agree with that - if some non-primary verification of its status can be located and added to the article. AllyD (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a degree-granting institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether it is a legitimate degree-granting institution or not, coverage in reliable sources is required, and there is not only none in the article now I could only find an extremely small amount, nowhere near enough to meet WP:GNG. Jinkinson talk to me 01:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verified degree-awarding institutions are almost always considered notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Have any of the editors who were unable to find sources conducted a search in Bengali? That is by far the most likely language to find sources. Deleting this without a Bengali search would be a case of systemic bias. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
reply the keep arguments are tenuous and hypothetical-- sourcing should/may exist, so the subject is notable. Institutions like this are notable because they are notable. Unfortunately, just being a "degree-granting institution" does not ensure notability. Without reliable sourcing, we don't know the subject to be notable. Were there actually Bengali language sourcing on the page, then we could evaluate the coverage to determine it's significance. The coverage available just does not meet the need so long as it remains hypothetical. Dlohcierekim 15:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment I closed this as delete on 6 March 2014, which was subsequenetly challenged on my talk page. New sources have come to light, so I'm now relisting. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In practice, consensus here for the last 3 or 4 years at least that all genuine degree-granting institutions are to be considered notable--the only exceptions have been institutions whose nature is dubious or where there are other critical problems. This is one of our best established guidelines, even though not formally adopted as a guideline: it has been followed more consistently than most of the written ones. This is WP, and the rules here are what we choose to have them, and the best proof (possibly the only proof) that we have a rule is that we consistently follow it. So what the delete argument is saying is that it is asking for a change in a very helpful established guideline: helpful because it lets us devote our efforts in this field to finding sources and making other very necessary improvements for the frequently inadequate submitted articles in this field, instead of arguing about them, which accomplishes nothing helpful to the encyclopedia. If one wishes to pretend the the GNG applies in all situations, despite the clear statement in the guideline itself that it does not, one can say that the reason for keeping all colleges whose existence can be verified is that there are always sources, even if they are diffciulty to find. In this case, they were not the least hard to find: I looked for 2 minutes in Google: besides a number of possibly unreliable unofficial directory listings, there's a listing on the official government site, [70] and a decent newspaper story. [71]. I see more further down in the search results also. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears to me that "deshiresult.com" is a personal website, not "the official government site", so can't be considered a WP:RS in its own right. I have replaced it in the article by adding a link to "www.techedu.gov.bd" which is the relevant govt site. That and the Daily Star article confirm that this institution grants diplomas and certificates, but it does not appear to be listed as a degree institution. AllyD (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The www.techedu.gov.bd listing is sufficient to confirm this as a post-school education institution, along with the Daily Star article reference. AllyD (talk) 19:40, 14 March 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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Donoghue[edit]

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

Non notable actor. No significant coverage. There is also some not significant coverage for another person. Dlohcierekim 00:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Rock Meditation Center[edit]

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

non notable center. The references are either local or mere mentions, or both together, so it cannot be described as :nationally recognized", except that is nationally recognized that it exists. That's not enough for notability. The wording seems quite promotional for the method of meditation taught there, but tI suppose that might be inevitable. There's extensive name-dropping of famous people who gave a presumably one-time talk there , that's characteristic of such articles, but it's linkspam. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established by the New York Times; it's described by the Washington Post as one of the biggest US retreat centers; an article on SRMC in the San Francisco Chronicle states "Now in its silver anniversary year, Spirit Rock has become a leading Buddhist meditation center, a stop on the Dalai Lama's visits to the Bay Area, and a collaborator with Stanford, UC Berkeley and Silicon Valley in research and discussions about melding mindfulness with neuroscience, sociology and technology." Other coverage includes Los Angeles Times, CNN, Travel + Leisure, National Geographic, PBS, and in several articles in the Huffington Post. I agree that the tone of the article is promotional, however, and I don't want to wander into overkill -- I should instead be editing it, particularly since I approved it at AfC. JSFarman (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JSFarman and my own investigations; There are enough sources not only to establish notability but to allow for a NPOV rewrite of the article which, there's no question, it could use. I added a few sources, but there are many more. The SF Chronicle called it "the Bay Area's best- known centers for Buddhist meditation." Does that not, along with the rest of the evidence, make it likely that it meets the GNG?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt certainly could use an NPOV makeover, but I'd judge its notability based on its prominence within the global/national Buddhist meditation context and the prominence within that community of those who taught/learned/visited there. A quick Google search for "Vipassana" gets links to this place in the 5th & 6th items and it's the only physical location mentioned on the first page, which seems reasonably prominent by this crude measure. I disagree with DGG's suggestion that Vipassana is merely the style taught at Spirit Rock; my limited understanding is that it's a significant style of Buddhism and a major element of American Buddhism. If my bias from being a local who occasionally visits Spirit Rock disqualifies me from voting, feel free to remove this vote.Wcoole (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the lead sentence of Vipassana is to be believed, we ought to not only not disqualify your vote, but actually let you use it to close the discussion: "Vipassanā (Pāli) or vipaśyanā (विपश्यना, Sanskrit; Chn. 觀 guān; Tib. ལྷག་མཐོང་, lhaktong; Wyl. lhag mthong) in the Buddhist tradition means insight into the true nature of reality."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:49, 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.