< 22 February	24 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 delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny Walsh[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern still remains - "No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG" JMHamo (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Has not played in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to cover GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This guy seriously cannot be notable and the article is unreferenced. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails both the general notabilty guideline and the subject-specific notability guideline, as the footballer hasn't received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. Mentoz (talk) 21:24, 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Davis (actor)[edit]

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

Not notable either as an MMA fighter which the article is primarily about (no top tier fights) or as an actor. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and doesn't appear to be notable as an actor.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Passes neither the notability guidelines for actors or for MMA fighters. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. The sources can't be reliable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:54, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Entertainment and Sports[edit]

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

Unreferenced promotional piece - notability not established. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is an unsourced biographical article which seems more of an advertisement than of any note. Along with Classic Entertainment and Sports its a walled garden with each being the only reference to the other.:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Neither article has any source except for CES's home page so they clearly both fail WP:GNG. There's also no indication of notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither article has any independent sources or any real claims of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:29, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Dysart[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography by an aspiring actor, but unfortunately, there is no in-depth third-party coverage, and all of the "sources" provided are from user-submitted sites like IMDb. Notability has not been demonstrated. DAJF (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help! I don't understand why the critique calls Eric DySart an "aspiring actor" when he has multiple credits in multiple media (stage, film, TV) to his name. I also don't understand why the filmography on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0073498/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_2) is not considered a credible source, though there are also references to other sources (Broadway World, Playbill.com) that further establish Eric DySart's presence as an established actor. Moreover, I don't understand why someone who is an actor in the original production of HAIRSPRAY on Broadway is also not considered "notable" enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akmandel (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete only passing mentions found. fails WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added an additional review from BACKSTAGE, praising Eric's performance. Akmandel (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets wp:NACTOR: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". --do ncr am 11:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly are the "significant roles"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, performing as Troilus in Troilus and Cressida and other roles are significant roles. But i see that those were at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, which I didn't evaluate. Maybe because that turns out to be a training academy, those were roles in productions that aren't notable, I am not sure how this works. --do ncr am 22:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet NACTOR. Neither he nor his character in Hairspray is mentioned in the article. He's also only a replacement in A Chorus Line. The IMDb film credits don't seem significant either. Plus I don't see any media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable actor at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of B-side compilation albums[edit]

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

Declined PROD. My argument was that it duplicated Category:B-side compilation albums but now I have a couple better ones (since that didn’t fly then and wouldn’t fly now).

First off, the category is much easier to update - just slap it onto an article and there you go. The list is more difficult to update, and less likely to be updated (either to begin with or because of that).

Second, the list contains some extraneous information - “Albums with extensive B-sides”. There could be hundreds of albums like these, all with articles on Wikipedia, and multiple editions thereof. An album having an extensive complement of B-sides that appear on the (or only a) special edition isn’t what the list or the category are about, and such a detail isn’t notable enough to have a list dedicated to it (in this article or any other). This isn’t Discogs, where such information can be presented much more concisely and properly. Lazy Bastard Guy 22:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly valid list with clear inclusion criteria of a notable topic. Having a category that is "easier to update" isn't grounds to delete the article, and articles & categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the nomination, but WP:CLN (and WP:NOTDUP in particular) is pretty clear that this is a legit article. Until there's consensus to change that guideline, we're stuck with these articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To pre-empt a likely argument, "The list contains entries that do not have their own articles, which a category could not," I have a few rebuttals. First of all, Wikipedia is not a directory and trying to bring this article up to something that is even remotely complete in this regard makes it large, unwieldy, and inversely useful (because readers may find it cumbersome and it does not lend itself very well to being read through at all, not that I'm sure lists are really intended this way but still...). Second, this article has no sources; this wouldn't be a problem for entries that have articles describing albums reliably identified as such but it absolutely is a problem for all other entries, especially those not linked to existing articles because the albums themselves may not even exist or, more likely, are not technically B-side compilation albums. That in itself limits how complete this article can be and the added usefulness as compared to the category is therefore limited. Lazy Bastard Guy 18:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Second, this article has no sources". WP:SOFIXIT. And how does having a category make that any better? I could slap that category on a dozen articles and you'd be none the wiser, without having to check each article within the category. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The category requires that the article exist first. To be used, the category must be cited/justified in the article. It's more difficult, especially these days (what with people prowling new article creations), to create an album article and have it stay around. Besides, why should I have to clean-up after other users who didn't bother to check or post sources for anything? I'd prefer to set the example that we don't allow policy/guideline violations to exist for years and then finally get corrected, which gives the impression that we allow people to use Wikipedia incorrectly regardless of whether they know better. This page just begs for too many submissions that haven't been checked, and in all likelihood refer to albums so obscure they can't be verified (and Google is limited; I'd estimate there are far more print sources than online ones and that limits my ability to do as you suggest).

Furthermore, some of the list entries aren't even B-side compilation albums - things like The White Elephant Sessions and other bootlegs, mostly non-notable. What are the criteria for being eligible for this list? I'd say the category has better ones. Lazy Bastard Guy 18:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, my argument was not that the article didn’t have sources, just that requiring them for those entries that didn’t have their own articles to link to made it of limited additional use as compared to the category. Duplicating lists and categories makes sense sometimes, but when they just end up being more or less carbon copies of each other, it makes less sense to me to keep the list when the category has more technical usefulness (from an editing standpoint). Lazy Bastard Guy 18:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore, some of the list entries aren't even B-side compilation albums - things like The White Elephant Sessions and other bootlegs" Then be bold and remove the ones that are not B-side albums. I've also spent a minute adding references for a couple of albums I have. Should be easy enough to source the rest. The inclusion criteria should be updated to remove any entry (either band or album) that currently doesn't have its own article too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and this is where policy & I differ. This just leads me back to something I do not support, that the list and category basically replicate each other. I see no point to this. I think I've said everything I'm going to say here, and I don't care how this turns out. I'm going to drop this and move on with my life. Thank you. Lazy Bastard Guy 16:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my point is not that I don't like it, it's that I see it as inefficient. But thanks for that remark, even though I said I was done. Lazy Bastard Guy 22:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP as explained above. And not that it's necessary to justify keeping it, but the mere fact that this is annotated with the album's recording artist alone makes it much more than a "carbon copy" of the category. It can also be annotated with year of release, label... postdlf (talk) 03:14, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonel Ávila[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he was notable for having played in the Salvadoran top flight. Since this league is not confirmed as fully pro in reliable sources this does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Has not played in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to cover GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails both the general notabilty guideline and the subject-specific notability guideline, as the footballer hasn't received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. Mentoz (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - where is evidence that top El Salvador league isn't fully professional? Nfitz (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are well aware of the inclusive nature of the FPL criteria, that those leagues not on the list are by definition not considered FPL at the moment and what you need to do if you feel there are grounds for the addition of any league, as discussed here. Fenix down (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are well aware that I'm simply asking where the evidence is that the league isn't fully professional. I'm not looking for an answer consisting of legalese Wikilawyering. Nfitz (talk) 04:59, 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 procedural close. A prior deletion nomination was created and is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Courtesans. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtesans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In the case of this article, Redirection to Eileen Daly seems to be a reasonable solution. Wonkyfox (talk) 19:17, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. A debate for this article was already opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Courtesans. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 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. Primarily due to the policy of verifiability (and thus obviously no prejudice against undeletion/recreation to fix it), but if the person fails WP:POLITICIAN but passes WP:ACADEMIC, the weight should reflect it. slakr^\ talk / 04:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Willison[edit]

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

Delete. Academic and unelected political candidate, whose article as currently written does not provide any substantive or properly sourced evidence that he actually passes either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:POLITICIAN. Article is sourced almost entirely to dead links, almost all of which were invalid primary sources (i.e. his bio on the website of the university where he works) even when they were live; the only still-extant non-primary source here is a simple table of the vote totals in his district in the 2004 election, which is not a source that can legitimately confer notability on a non-elected candidate. There are claims here that could potentially put him past WP:ACADEMIC if they were properly sourced, so I'm fully prepared to withdraw this nomination if the article's sourcing can be improved, but in its current state it's a pretty clear delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk

Keep. GS h-index of 27 [1] in a well-cited field passes WP:Prof#C1. Political activities don't rate. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

If you replaced "passes" with "would pass if the article were actually referenced to a single reliable source at all", I'd probably agree with you — I said right in my initial rationale that I was willing to withdraw the nomination if the sourcing improved. But as a WP:BLP, he's not entitled to keep a standalone article that doesn't actually cite any legitimate, substantive and/or non-primary sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless the article is completely rewritten, WP:POLITICIAN is more relevant to it than WP:PROF, since it only mentions his academic employment in passing and is more focused on his candidacy. And as an unelected candidate he doesn't pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Xxanthippe (talk · contribs) above and he's in Canadian Who's Who [2], which confirms positive professional assessment of his notability. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then source it properly. A WP:BLP is not entitled to keep an unsourced or primary-sourced article. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 7 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 / 04:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2000 A.D.D.[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Martin (politician)[edit]

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

Delete; city councillor in a city too small for its city councillors to qualify as notable under WP:POLITICIAN. The wikistandard for city councillors to be considered sufficiently notable is generally that the city is a major, internationally famous metropolitan city, or alternatively that the article makes a strong and well-sourced claim that the person is more notable than most other city councillors for some substantive reason — but this person meets neither of those standards. His candidacy in a federal election, further, does not get him over the bar, as candidates for office also do not pass WP:POLITICIAN just by virtue of being candidates; if a person has not won election to a notable office, then you have to be able to properly demonstrate that they pass a different notability guideline (e.g. as a writer, an athlete, etc.) to justify an article. In addition, the article is cited only to a single primary source, namely his bio on the city's own webpage, and even that is actually now a dead link. As always, I'd be willing to withdraw this nomination if the article could be revised to make a more substantive and well-sourced demonstration of notability for something more than just being a smalltown city councillor and unsuccessful MP candidate — but in its current state it's a clear delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very few town councillors are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramzan Ali[edit]

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

Not notable people. Aftab1995 (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After having searched the internet to see what the subject has been doing, I am not convinced that he meets notability requirements. Aftab1995 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two external link to Indian national newspapers having significant coverage of the subject ([3], [4]). He might have published simultaneously into many others. I found some more, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I guess there are many more and sufficient enough to help the subject to reach WP:BLP standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, this article meets WP:CSD criteria as very short article. Secondly, i don't understand how this article meets WP:BLP standart? because he is Limca Book of Records holder Or he try to holding Guinness Book of World Records for non-stop hair cutting? --Aftab1995 (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You are advised to review WP:CSD. I would quote CSD#A1 if you are concerned about, it says, Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. The subject of the article is identified. It voids here. If CSD#A3, it says, Any article consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections... It voids as well. And not only BLP, but the subject satisfy GNG and NPEOPLE as well. And why? Because he has been published into multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject (see, WP:BASIC). And not only one event, following his coverage of Limca world records, he might have been published thereafter as well, for many other activies. He is the owner of "Ramzan's Hair Academy" (source). The Academy might have been published as well quoting him. The article requires expansion not deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per guidelines. The subject meets WP:BIO.--Iniciativass (talk) 07:45, 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 / 04:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daichi Shibata (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Contest rationale did not address this concern. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Has not played in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to cover GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails both the general notabilty guideline and the subject-specific notability guideline, as the footballer hasn't received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. Mentoz (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The season begins this weekend. And we're really going to delete the players now, so that we recreate them in a few weeks? Let's have some WP:COMMONSENSE. The player is signed to a fully-pro league listed in WP:FPL and is almost certain to play. With almost certainty they will play, WP:CRYSTAL is not a factor. Nfitz (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This is a young player just signed to a team in a fully pro league listed in WP:FPL. He was listed as a sub in the first match of the season [10], but did not play. There's a good chance he will play in the season, but since he's a goalkeeper, one cannot say. WP:NFOOTBALL does not allow for considering the "possibility" of appearing, so I cannot vote "keep," but it does not make sense to delete an article that might be revived satisfying WP:NFOOTBALL very soon. Michitaro (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and besides, the sources appear to be written in Japanese anyway. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the language of the sources has no bearing on judging notability. See the third criterion in WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 02:36, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Maltsev[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, obviously fails WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I trust Nomoskedasticity's judgment as to the article's importance. The subject is offended (understandably) by the maintenance tags and our ability to prevent POV edits, but there appear on the face of it to be insufficient sources to remedy either. The subject also requests deletion (Ticket:2014022310005814); I believe consensus is to delete marginal biographies when the subject expresses a preference for not having an article. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet any of the criteria under WP:PROF; moreover, subject wants his page to be deleted. Steeletrap (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best borderline and subject requests deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have any evidence of passing WP:PROF and it seems the subject's wishes also match this outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 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 redirect to Eileen Daly. slakr^\ talk / 04:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtesans[edit]

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

Delete - If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context.[7] Otherwise, if deleting:[8]None of the reference sources used in The Courtesans article meets the criteria of editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. After extensive search I have not found any aforementioned reliable, verifiable third-party or independent sources as per the reliable source guideline. </ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources</ref> </ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability </ref> AntonioBarrone (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)— AntonioBarrone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"To be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, a subject must be sufficiently notable, and that notability must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. As noted, the sources you use must be reliable; that is, they must be sources that exercise some form of editorial control and have some reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Print sources (and web-based versions of those sources) tend to be the most reliable, though some web-only sources may also be reliable. Examples might include (but are not limited to) books published by major publishing houses, newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals, websites of any of the above, and other websites that meet the same requirements as a reputable print-based source. In general, sources with no editorial control are not reliable. These include (but are not limited to) books published by vanity presses, self-published 'zines', blogs, web forums, usenet discussions, BBSes, fan sites, vanity websites that permit the creation of self-promotional articles, and other similar venues. If anyone at all can post information without anyone else checking that information, it is probably not reliable." - </ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article</ref> The article "The Courtesans" relies excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral as all of the external links are the article's subject and article's creator personal websites links. That indicates that this article "The Courtesans" is utilising Wikipedia as a self promotional tool rather than a neutral, reliable source of information. </ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest</ref> Another point is this article's content. The "TV and Film" section does not contain any reference to the actual band's music being used in any film or TV programme but contains only references to Eileen Daly herself and her acting career and film appearances. The section also contains misleading information regarding film "All about Anna" and I quote: Eileen performed 'Brute of Cute' in All About Anna 2005 a film from Innocent Pictures under the direction of the controversial filmmaker Lars Von Trier as a subsidiary of his parent company Zentropa - end of qoute, the film "All about Anna" was directed by Jessica Nilsson not Lars Von Trier as suggested in the quote above. AgnesJones (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)— AgnesJones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have found that “The Courtesans” Wikipedia article was created by the article’s subject close friend and business associate at Gipsyphilia productions which is in breach of Wiki guidelines regarding conflict of interest (coi) used Wikipedia as a promotional tool for herself (Gipsyphilia productions) and her friend and business associate Eileen Daly and her band. http://www.linkedin.com/in/lstudholme

http://gipsyphiliaproductions.co.uk/press-release.html

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/the-courtesans-band/77/718/b15 Wonkyfox (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)— Wonkyfox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eileen Daly, where the band is already covered in as much detail as is justified by the available sources. There doesn't appear to be any significant independent coverage of the band in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who in cases like this is responsible for redirection Michig ? AgnesJones (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be consesnsus after 7 days that a redirect is appropriate, the closing administrator will redirect the article. --Michig (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find any notable independent coverage of subject as per the reliable source guideline. </ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources</ref>, This Article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. AgnesJones (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)— AgnesJones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Delete - The Courtesans band - article that does not meet WP:BAND. Article lacks independent, non-trivial references. The references in this article consist of blogposts and YouTube videos, band’s website, Eileen Daly’s company website and Bandcamp (neither reliable nor third-party)Lettuce88 (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eileen Daly, not notable enough, but a redirect or merge (with heavy edits) would be useful if the project develops.Karst 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Eileen Daly conflict of interest, insufficient notability Wonkyfox (talk) 13:02, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Břetislav Kafka[edit]

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

Non notable Czech parapsychologist, the problem is that no reliable references can be found. Article is original research and the few sources that are on it are all unreliable fringe sources (Michael Talbot) etc. Goblin Face (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 15:44, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete If the only sources are other fringe sources we won't be able to create a balanced article up to Wikipedia's standards as per WP:FRINGE Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe researchers need mainstream sources (covering their work in-depth from the mainstream point of view) to put their work in perspective, per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. We don't have such sources in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of reliable non-fringe sources. --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 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 / 04:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fiebag[edit]

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

There's no reliable references for this guy. Seems to be a non-notable fringe writer. Goblin Face (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 15:28, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Peter Fiebag is a prolific author within the world of ancient astronaut speculation, and has proved influential within the field. Unfortunately, he appears to have a minimal online presence based on a Google search, and also doesn't appear to have a personal website. He doesn't have much media exposure, so the only substantial sources relating to his ideas are likely his writings themselves, which include hard copies of his books and articles. He has written for Legendary Times, the magazine formerly published by Giorgio A. Tsoukalos. Direct references to these texts with page numbers, etc., would help to give substance to the article. I believe the article should be kept to allow time for sources to be located and cited. Xoegki (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above quote: "the only substantial sources relating to his ideas are likely his writings themselves" is precisely why he should be deleted. Notability isn't the same as renown or fame. It doesn't matter if he is prolific or influential - if he cannot be shown to be influential he doesn't meet WP:FRINGE standards. Without a few reviews of his writing he doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR standards. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted directly above, fails WP:AUTHOR. 188.220.165.128 (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. If the subject is "influential" where is the evidence of this? Being prolific is does not make one notable. Are his writings reviewed or cited? Is he in an index of authors? Does a biography appear in such indexes or in a published reliable source? Has he been quoted or interviewed by reliable sources? I find no evidence of this. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:13, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vestibulo emotional reflex[edit]

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

This article has existed since 2010, but only now popped up on my radar as a result of a couple of edits. The only source for this is a Russian commercial website. There are no published academic sources, reputable or not, asserting the existence of the entity named in the title. Looie496 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as commercial spam (and that's being charitable). Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 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. slakr^\ talk / 04:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sameera Weerasinghe[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. I can't find any significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. There are quite a few mentions in blogs, but that isn't sufficient for inclusion. SmartSE (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Do Not delete. Check the link for information http://www.amfa.or.kr/amfa04/amfa0413.php

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Sameera+Weerasinghe%22+-wikipedia&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=F9QKU8LEMO-fiAe5p4GADA&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=649&dpr=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.64.224 (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources provided are mostly unreliable, the person the article about doesn't seem that notable, and this is coupled with the autobiography and copyright issues on it. --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:07, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Prizren[edit]

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

Originally a cut/paste from Prizren, seems to be semi-essay. It may be worthy of a merge, but does not qualify as a stand-alone at the present time. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge anything useful into Prizren. No need for a Geography of ..., for every locality.SchreiberBike talk 21:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge. Not worth a standalone.--Charles (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the creator of the article, and this article is ongoing a current construction. I would appreciate if it remains undeleted for several days until it is finished. --Mentor Elshani (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a confusing deletion proposal. This article has unique info and references of its own. If the OP proposes to merge, it should be a merger proposal and not a deletion proposal. I don't think that it should be merged either. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason for deletion is provided. Every article ought to be judged on its own merits; see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. This locality does appear to have unique geographical features. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved since the initial proposal. Go back to a version from when it was proposed to see what it looked like at the time.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., then see WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, the article will stay on Wikipedia permanently ? (The creator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentor Elshani (talk • contribs) 22:42, 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 merge to Ancient astronauts. (that is, whatever's relevant/appropriate for the target article) slakr^\ talk / 04:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Astronaut Creation Theory[edit]

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

Everything here that is not a violation of WP:NOR or WP:FRINGE can easily be included at ancient astronauts. jps (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly merge a few select items, but most seem covered in ancient astronauts or sub-articles from there.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; seems to put undue weight on the ideas from one episode of some silly infotainment episode on the History channel. (With rose-tinted glasses, I fondly remember when the History channel mostly covered actual history). bobrayner (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An example of what happens when pop culture takes over where education leaves off. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lot's of original research and undue weight to fringe sources. It would be a stretch to find reliable references for the topic. Goblin Face (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ancient astronauts. Some of the material is amusing and worth adding to the other article. Creating a redirect will minimize the risk of the article being recreated again later. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review of the page I created. Feel free to delete it. It was a class project.Newsmill (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying you knowingly and purposely created an inappropriate article?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Way to WP:BITE a newcomer, Loreindrew. The editor is saying they can live with our decision and you snark at him? It looks like a good faith attempt, however many problems it may have. Montanabw^(talk) 04:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Montanabw~~, Newsmill, you are welcome here, and your initial efforts are a lot better than mine were when I first started. Please stick around and create more content. Could you do me a favor and tell your instructor to read Wikipedia:Student assignments? He/she can reach me by email at this link if she/he has any questions. Again, welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Guy, I'm not the person who wrote this article, that was Newsmill, and I'm not a newcomer; I've been here since 2006. I just commented above on the AfD and suggested a merge of the usable info. I was trouting Loreindrew for snarking at a newbie. Newsmill said he did it as a class project, so it's HIS teacher who needs your comment, not me (I happen to agree with you on that topic, though. This is the second time I've come across "class projects" by instructors who don't know how to edit wikipedia) Montanabw^(talk) 02:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Posted the wrong name. Sorry about that. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete and move any properly sourced information to Ancient astronauts. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested to ancient astronauts; see also WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above to Ancient astronauts, well sourced material can be added to that. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:24, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iqra Nadeem[edit]

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

A biography article on a subject that after an in depth review, I find non-notable. She hardly finds significant mention in any reliable sources. The only reliable secondary source I can see is the German newspaper article but that is not enough to establish notability. And the only source that covers the subject significantly is Christian Labour Movement site (primary and unreliable) of which she is a Vice President. Besides failing the basic notability criteria she also fails WP:AUTHOR, if we have to consider her being a notable author. SMS ^Talk 11:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 11:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 11:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:, per notability and author, though I have edited the article several times,when I went through the sources, non of those establish the notability of the subject, I asked the Smsarmad to take a look at the sources and assist me, he agreed, that there is not enough to establish notability, and no any reliable source that significantly covers the notability of the subject. We should maintain the standards of the Wiki-Project. Justice007 (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Delete: I have checked the sources given and she does not satisfy the Wikipedia's criteria of notability. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actauly I have to learn many rules, anyhow I will accept what the result is. Majoroflaw (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:, As the sources, there is no any support of the subject to be notable. MJ84 (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article does not passes the notability per WP:Author. Aanapk (talk) 16:59, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isao Kobayashi[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - second tier career. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights and a second tier title doesn't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:27, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Razak Baginda[edit]

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

Malaysian political analyst apparently involved in two criminal trials. Do not see a case for notability beyond these trials. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 trials mentioned, one is the first murder trial and the other the civil trial. There is currently a corruption trial in France where he is also being called as a witness. So that's 3 trials in total. That's now notable. 138.130.68.18 (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I won't !vote on this AfD (yet), but I don't think being involved in several criminal cases is notable in itself. You'd still need reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information into a summary of him on the article about the murder of his Mongolian mistress. He is not notable for anything not related to that murder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I am giving my two cents as a Malaysian. Firstly, he was a one of the accused in a murder trial in Malaysia where he was acquitted for abatement over the murder of Altantuyaa. Secondly, he is now being sued by the father of the woman now in the civil trial (this has currently not started due to delays in the Malaysian legal system), in which the Malaysian government is a party to. Thirdly, his name was brought up as one of the witnesses in the investigation in the corruption of the submarine purchases in France, whereby his company Perimekar was involved a go-between between the Malaysian military and the French government. So he is not only notable for the murder, but corruption investigation.58.168.69.11 (talk) 10:10, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Known for crimes, but still notable because of the several different trials and corruption charges.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant amount of sourcing not a typical crime case. -- GreenC 20:31, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salming Sports[edit]

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

Fail WP:CORP, no independent secondary sources provided. JMHamo (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. i agree with nom. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:36, 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, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not even going to go into notability here sence there clearly is one and a big one. You cant go into any shop in Sweden and not see Salming products especially underwear. Still this article is not a good one to be nice. I am suprized the writer didnt write a bigger one or added more sources and reffs. There are tons of them on the net. The article itself is a keep becouse of its notability BUT needs to be seriously rewroten. As it is now its bad.Stepojevac (talk) 15:25, 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, ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 04:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Removed accidental double-relist; actual relist log is for 15 February 2014 --slakr^\ talk / 11:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even though the article is at the very best a stub, it is a notable subject. Salming sports is one of swedens most known brands when it comes to underwear.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 19 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 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:30, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD suffered in relisting, being relisted to the 15th - then to the 18th, but then auto-added to the 21st's log, putting it in both the 15th's and the 21'st logs. I've relisted it to the 23rd's, where it can now run out to a conclusion.

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 / 04:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Huygens[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for this project, fails WP:ARTIST. The award of officer of the order of the crown is one that appears to be routinely given to professional staff in government departments - a doctor, a translator. A 27-page booklet apparently about him was published in an edition of 400 copies in 1952. Apart from those, I've not been able to find anything resembling a reliable source that even mentions him, let alone confirms his notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources in google books or elsewhere (inc. the French version) which shows that WP:ARTIST is met. SmartSE (talk) 20:09, 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, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although the Order of the Crown is awarded to military officers and civil servants automatically for length of service, awards to non-government-servants are discretionary. In this latter respect, Officer of the Order of the Crown seems to be pretty much equivalent to an OBE in the British Honours System. While an OBE would not qualify a recipient for automatic inclusion (that would require a CBE, the next grade up), it would be very likely that a British artist who had received an OBE would have an article on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hit ball[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication that this game passes Wikipedia's notability requirements. It was deleted six years ago for the same reason. Pichpich (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources at all besides the creator's own website. I couldn't find anything on Google either. Sounds like the page is just WP:NOTADVERTISING. MikeMan67 (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 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) 15:25, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-recognized sport, seems promotional/advertising--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:51, 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 no consensus. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page regarding merge potential for this article. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ESC/Java[edit]

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

unmaintained research software, fails Wikipedia:Notability_(software)#Inclusion Ysangkok (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being unmaintained is not a good reason to delete it per WP:NTEMP. The paper "Extended static checking for Java" has some 1,300 citations in GS, so I think this is notable--not necessarily for the software itself as a usable artifact, but for its ideas. Finding some WP:GNG-type coverage for academic stuff is always a challenge, but ironically even more so for highly cited stuff because there is too much material to go through. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cormac Flanagan has a h-index of 39 [11] and this is his most cited paper, so if all else fails, someone can create a WP:PROF article for him and merge this into a research section there. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge with extended static checking, because the theory and the most noted implementation/application are by the same person/group. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Spec Sharp has a comparable number of GS-cites though (~1K), so if ESC/Java is merged to extended static checking, the same should probably be done with Spec Sharp. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think [12] and especially [13] work towards satisfying WP:GNG for ESC/Java (the latter in particular has relatively extensive coverage of ESC/Java by different authors). Yet another group wrote a comparison paper on arxiv/CoRR, but it seems that piece wasn't published anywhere (else) [The first author of that paper wrote a tool (CPBPV) that somewhat competes with ESC/Java, although CPBPV is not for Java programs. Their actually published paper about CPBPV also contains some of that comparative material (less though) [14]]. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage in books intended for non-researchers, but if we're going to cover academic compsci topics, this seems among the notable ones. What I said about merging it with extended static checking is still worth considering though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note how extended static checking was created by a contributor (that only edits this and the article on ESC), that, if you Google his nick, leads you to a StackOverflow page with a link to whiley.org, another implementation of ESC. Conflict of Interest indeed. I maintain that maybe 15 people worldwide have ever worked on ESC technology. ESC, being a "collective name for a range of techniques", is about as vague as you can get. If we had articles on every single "collective name for ranges of techniques", we'd have thousands. Anyway, there is a large number of citations, and therefore I think we should merge this with ESC and maybe have sections on ESC/Haskell and ESC/Modula-3 too. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no doubt a lot of articles on Wikipedia, even many academic ones, are created by COI editors. It's also true that even a large number of academic citations can have little connection with practical/actual use. (For another recent example of academic software AfD see flora-2, where its [academic] users have somehow shown up to defend it. My favorite example of disconnect between citations and usefulness are some wireless mesh routing algorithms. Even the "losers" there [i.e. algorithms that nobody considers using] have thousands of citations, while the "winners" like AODV have tens of thousands even though their practical use is still very limited.) But I think in this case at least the ESC umbrella term has been used by more than one research group, even if there are variations in details. This might sound disturbing for an engineering/compsci topic, but it's actually common in social sciences for authors not mean exactly the same thing by a term. So that's not an entirely convincing argument for getting rid of the ESC page altogether per WP:DABCONCEPT etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:35, 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]

I added many more references. I am against deletion of ESC/Java but I believe, if this should be merged anywhere it should be merged into Java Modeling Language (JML) as OpenJML has been declared as the successor to ESC/Java2 with comments on OpenJML's website like:
OpenJML is a tool set for JML, built on the OpenJDK framework for Java. It is intended a the replacement for ESC/Java2, which is only for Java 1.4. OpenJML is current with Java 1.7u6.

Extended static checking seems highly related but a more generic concept as it applies to more than just Java related languages. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 15:37, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 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 redirect to This_American_Life#In_popular_culture. No genuine evidence of notability shown; may be just WP:TOOSOON, hence the redirect Black Kite (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That American Life[edit]

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

Non-notable podcast (at least, so far). I find no substantive independent coverage. The Insider Louisville article isn't independent: it was written by someone who identifies himself as a friend of the person who created the program. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an independent source, that discusses the podcast and encourages people to listen.[15] Additionally, the show is mentioned as part of another artistic venture by an artist that was showcased in a widely-followed internet newspaper. [16]Joe3guy (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this to show up as a hotlink rather than a reference. The KSR is sort of OK, but the DD source isn't really about the radio show so it's more of a trivial source when you get down to it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/delete. There has been some coverage, but not enough to show that this fairly new podcast series passes notability guidelines. This is just a little bit WP:TOOSOON for an entry at this point in time. I would say that this could possibly be re-directed to This_American_Life#In_popular_culture for now as well, as there's just enough coverage to where this might merit a redirect. We just need to wait a bit- hopefully if this keeps on the way it is, we can re-create this later on this year. But for now? Most of the coverage is fairly light. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The facebook page shows that this Wikipedia article was created due to a promotional request. Also, one of the references in the article has the words "That American Life" in the title, but the article is about "This American Life". On the other hand, the use of the word "friend" in the deletion nomination is a misrepresentation of the use of the word in the Insider Louisville article. Unscintillating (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:AGF. Technically the sources in the article are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. No prejudice to a new AfD in six months. Unscintillating (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, selected among "Best Comedy Podcasts", and also additional secondary source coverage here. — Cirt (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Player.fm is not a notable/reliable source, and Daily Dot has a single brief paragraph about the show. ––Agyle (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet GNG. There are three reliable sources with significant coverage cited, and while they provide decent coverage, they aren't strong sources (KSR in particular), and those are all I was able to locate. I understand opinions vary, but this falls far short of the coverage I expect to establish a subject's notability. A request to create the article, mentioned by Unscintillating, doesn't concern me, if the article meets Wikipedia's standards (neutral point of view, cites verifiable reliable sources, etc.), and in the current version of the article those don't seem to be issues. ––Agyle (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Podcast generating buzz on sites such as Forbes, The Daily Dot, etc. Has had well-known musicians such as Yoni Wolf and Casiotone for the Painfully Alone contribute and their pages link to the That American Life page. Page is objective, not promotional, and merely informational. -- 6:55 PM, 26 February 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.204.186.9 (talk) 23:55, 26 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) 15:24, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninth Cloud[edit]

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

Not notable - not even a YouTube trailer. IMDB states that even after three years, the film has not been released. Parrot of Doom 12:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The most recent news I could find about this film is this from December 2013, which says, "Her new film, The Ninth Cloud, which is being repped for distribution by Shoreline Entertainment is a dreamy, surreal marvel, which could do very well on the 2014 international festival circuit." The filming seems complete, so we should look to see if coverage existed before and during actual filming to determine if there was independent interest in this project. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Wow, this project goes back to 2008. Apparently it has also been titled Men Don't Lie. This is from Variety back in 2008. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor involved in the creation of this, and other related articles, is probably involved with the people responsible for these projects. Look at his contributions and you'll find a raft of similar, poor quality articles on barely or completely non-notable films. Parrot of Doom 19:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Looking at the tone of WP:NFF, this one wouldn't meet the criteria even if it was filled with the most prolific of actors and crew, which it is not. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - After some excellent editing by Tokyogirl79, I do think we can barely keep this article. Especially considering the film will be released in a little over a month, which should allow editors to expand the article, it I don't see any benefit in deleting the article at this point. With the maintenance tags in place, this shouldn't fly under the radar either in case I'm proven wrong. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 07:30, 26 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} 09:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-weak keep - imdb lists a release date of April 5th. Director and leads meet notability, but article has no references and would need improvement.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: It looks like this was known under several different names such as Bob's Not Gay, Men Don't Lie, and Cloud Nine. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The coverage is light, but it seems to be enough to pass notability guidelines. If it must be deleted, we should redirect it to the author's page but keep the article's history intact just in case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a primary source or two, but these were to confirm the various working titles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enclosure (John Frusciante album)[edit]

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

Non-notable future release. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. The only refs are self-published. Does not yet meet WP:NALBUM. Track listing is unreferenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to John Frusciante. Deletion just isn't an option here. The release date, cover art and tracklisting are all confirmed, and there is already independent coverage out there, e.g. [17], [18], [19], [20]. Even if we didn't have coverage available now, it's out in 6 weeks, reviews and further coverage is sure to follow, and deletion at this stage would be pointless. --Michig (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage for this release as it's only 6 weeks away. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Deletion is an option here. The information about the release is known, but it still does not meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. If it has "plenty of coverage", I didn't see it in RSes, which is required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if we were to decide that the album technically failed those guidelines at present, and were to use those guidelines as the sole consideration here (which we are not obliged to do), the sensible course of action would be to merge to the article on the artist, not to delete. Since we can be almost certain that this will be reviewed in multiple reliable sources nearer to its release, deleting now only for it to be recreated in a few weeks seems pointless. --Michig (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable album, passes WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 01:19, 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) 18:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of birds by flight heights[edit]

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

Pointless list. Only two identifiable referenced species. Then we get vague terms like "vultures". Many species in at least two families, does the unsourced text apply to all the species? Similarly with #4, seven families with hundreds of species, all flying at 1135 ft, allegedly. A list of two verifiable items isn't a list, makes as much a sense as "list of presidents named Bush" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance for improvements? I found and added the sources in 5 minutes. Right now we have this: Organisms_at_high_altitude#Flying_and_gliding (Highest flying birds is a redirect to that page). Is it sufficient or could we do better than this? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specific examples of highest flying bird species are Rüppell's Vulture (fact reliably referenced in the article's body), Bar-tailed Godwit, Mallard or Alpine Chough (ref. [21], Audubon). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more species from that useful reference. -- 101.119.15.81 (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The point of the page seems clear and, as people have studied the altitude of flying birds and written about this in papere such as The Speed and Altitude of Bird Flight, the topic is notable. Andrew (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that the topic isn't notable, just that as it stands it doesn't have enough content to justify its existence. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it isn't perfect, but it has some referenced content and some room for expansion, as suggested above. It isn't the best start, but not the worst either. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is classic original research Secret ^account 22:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? The content is now well-referenced. -- 101.119.14.81 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs work, but satisfies WP:LISTN. Similar lists occur widely in WP:RS. The nom's criticisms have become untrue after changes to the article, and having insufficient content was not really a valid deletion criterion anyway. -- 101.119.15.81 (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article has been expanded and it is well-cited with reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been asked if I would like to withdraw this AfD. Although I would accept that it now has more than two items and is referenced, it is still pointless.

It implies that these are the highest flying birds, but this is clearly unlikely. There are no species listed that are exclusively from N or S America (although two breed there as well as Eurasia), just one primarily African species, none from south or southeast Asia, none from Australasia, and just one Asian species that doesn't breed in Europe too. Very Eurocentric.

The suggestion is that these are the birds that can fly to the highest levels, but the Alpine Chough starts off a much higher level than most birds

The focus on Europe means that likely contenders like the Andean Condor, Asian swifts, American geese and ducks are ignored.

It's a random list, I'm content to let the AfD run its course Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These both seem to be cleanup problems, not deletion problems. Why not tag it with ((globalize)) and ((Expand list)) instead of nominating for deletion? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the list obviously has to be limited to known high-flying birds. The "Eurocentric" comment is completely ridiculous, since several birds mentioned fly across the Himalayas. There is already an American duck on the list (with a height record established over Nevada), but feel free to add the Andean Condor -- it would come in at #10, given the present nine entries, since it soars to only 15,000 feet. However, incompleteness of the list is not a deletion reason: see WP:WORKINPROGRESS. And I don't think this article would ever have come to AfD if a proper WP:BEFORE check had been done. -- 101.119.14.172 (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no idea what "random list" is supposed to mean. The list is of birds which have been observed to fly very high; and the article in its present form collates all the high-flying species listed in four separate reliable sources. -- 101.119.14.210 (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Move contents to section in Bird flight - the actual maximum height at which a bird is seen is really more an artefact related to human presence at high-altitude and circumstances that allow observation rather than the actual abilities of the birds (many may actually be capable of higher altitude flight than the few that have been observed) - the contents of this list can be comfortably and contextually handled in an article on bird physiology, or hypoxia or avian flight - see http://jap.physiology.org/content/111/5/1514 http://intl-icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/1/62.full http://intl-icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/1/62.full Shyamal (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Cited extrema are inherently notable (despite Shyma's objection). If you delete this one, you might as well delete List of birds by flight speed too. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Extremes are notable, yes. But is trying to list all birds this way notable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that the article will eventually have an altitude limit (say, 2000 m or 4000 m) and only list extremes above that, in order to keep the list to a sane length. -- 101.119.15.146 (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that List_of_birds_by_flight_speed has some of the same problems and is equally worthy of deletion (though I am not a big fan of the deletion process). Shyamal (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing any good arguments that relate to actual deletion criteria, like notability, and it doesn't seem inherently problematic to me. Article certainly needs cleanup and expansion and may need to be moved or reworked into something like "List of birds by highest observed flight altitude" or "List of highest-flying birds", or something like that. I think anything that purports to be a list of all birds will necessarily be unwieldy and incomplete, so the scope may need to be reigned in, but that's a discussion that can be had on the talk page of the article. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, this list/article needs expansion and some other love, but in no way needs to be deleted. Granted, the way it looked when the nomination originated may have been closer to a Delete, but, it still would have been keep. I think, with the amount of energy spent arguing about these things we should just research and expand, and as for the argument about the list being anecdotal and meaningless as it is only the heights at which humans see them fly at. Aren't a lot of things that we document about birds only as likely to be "around humans" such as their behavior, etc. Also, as with most behaviors with animals, the vast majority all act the same, it's not like one Andean Condor wakes up one morning and says I am going to fly to the moon. They do what instinct has them doing and they pretty much all do it the same way --species by species. Thanks speednat (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a lot of behavioural traits are noted by accident, but by and large our species accounts include behavioural notes based on secondary/tertiary sources which point out what is normal and we exceptions are usually expected to be indicated carefully. The Ruppell's vulture height given is not the norm but a single exception based on an aircraft collision record. This and some of the other exceptional records could very well be included in the article on bird flight. Shyamal (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruppell's vulture height given is widely cited in secondary and tertiary sources, and it has long been in the Rüppell's Vulture article. You're clutching at straws here. -- 101.119.15.2 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is indeed well cited. But should this list have the normal altitudes or the highs alone? Above terrain or above mean sea level? During migration or normal flight? Shyamal (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really an argument for deletion? The same argument could be made about whether to list cities by core population or metro area or something. For now it's small enough that a sortable table with cruising altitude and maximum altitude would probably work fine. Presumably the amount of information that is interesting to people is an editorial decision that can be made among the editors of the article, which is again a surmountable problem. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an argument for deletion (I do not vote for that anyway). I see what the point is, it is just that this is currently being put together in a slip-shod way and it will remain that way if the aims are unclear. What you are really seeking seems to me like what will happen in a better way with an efficient semantic wiki - until that happens, the list can live. Shyamal (talk) 01:45, 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. Exterminated. slakr^\ talk / 04:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Profits of Extermination[edit]

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

No indication at all of anything notable about this book, as required by WP:BK. No sources on page either. mikeman67 (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found where it's used in a piece by SOAW, but so far the pickings are a little slim. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've still yet to find reviews, but it's cited as a reference in a ton of various academic type texts. ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could create a page for the author and redirect there? Assuming we can find sources, of course. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GS shows very few citations. Unless book reviews in major publications crop up, this does not meet any notability guideline. --Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alison A. Carr-Chellman[edit]

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

A researcher who has published a few papers, doesn't meet the prof test. Tone is promotional, with her views presented as facts. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wp:resume, would need a significant rewrite to be articleworthy.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of 13 in a high cited field. Off to a good start but not there yet. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. I agree with Xxanthippe: she looks likely to eventually pass WP:PROF but not quite there yet. And the lack of non-primary sources is also a problem that can get better with more time. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has considerable similarity to this bio. If kept, the article should be rewritten to be less similar. I don't consider this to be a case for CSD G12, which is why I haven't deleted it already. James086 ^Talk 20:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Xxan and David. Agricola44 (talk) 18:06, 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 / 04:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Johnstone[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT: Lacks significant roles in multiple notable productions. Insufficient sourcing for a reasonably detailed biography. "Article" is currently nothing more than a list of roles, not a biography. SummerPhD (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable actor. Only one notable TV role. JDDJS (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The role described as notable doesn't appear to raise this actor into the top 20+ actors on the series in question, since he isn't listed there--I'm left thinking that even calling that one role notable, or even significant, is a stretch. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:12, 7 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last Days in the Desert[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM: Independent reliable sources do not confirm that principle photography has begun. Too soon. SummerPhD (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong feeling about this one, but I do believe you will have more to write about if you wait until the film is released. Might be better to stick this in your sandbox and try again laterBali88 (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Broadway World providing a "first look" here at the film in production. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NF. Apparently independent reliable sources confirm that principle filming has begun (thanks Erik), and we have ample sources available to meet our basic notability standard. It serves the project to have this remain and grow over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have independent reliable sources confirming principle photography. We have broadwayworld.com updating text from a press release. Compare:

"The film is produced by Julie Lynn and Bonnie Curtis of Mockingbird Pictures along with Wicks Walker of Division Films, who financed the picture in collaboration with recently shingled Ironwood Entertainment, with Aspiration Media and New Balloon in association. Last Days in the Desert is set to commence principal photography in early February in the Southern California desert."[27] with

"The film is produced by Julie Lynn and Bonnie Curtis of Mockingbird Pictures along with Wicks Walker of Division Films, who financed the picture in collaboration with recently shingled Ironwood Entertainment, with Aspiration Media and New Balloon in association. The film has commenced principal photography in the Southern California desert."[28]

Is broadwayworld.com a reliable source? I don't know. However, it isn't their reporting. Their source for the update to the press release (linked at the bottom) is celebrity-gossip.net who in turn credits gossipcenter.com.

Yes, we have reliable sources printing material from a press release. Is one press release (no matter how many times it is reprinted), with an update from celebrity-gossip.net the basis for a balanced article on anything? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SummerPhD: The press release is not being reprinted. To be reprinted is to mean that the press release is repeated exactly as it is. However, the references in the article are journalists writing about the film in their own words, which indicates an independent interest in covering the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If two students turned in the two paragraphs above and claimed they were "in their own words", should I believe that they just happened to come up with exactly the same words? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This still looks too soon. All the sources in article and this discussion quote the exact same words strongly suggesting the source is a single press release , presumably by Mockingbird Films. What we need for notability is reliable, independent sources - I don't see that here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline.com are all reliable, independent sources. They use information from the press release in their coverage. There's nothing wrong with that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see film notability guidelines - It is clear that the authorship of these comments is someone associated with the film which the reliable sources have simply regurgitated. Fails general notability test. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the "press release" part? These articles are not mere reprints of the press release. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:02, 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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 04:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwaan Chowdhri[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, I was unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this filmmaker. However, it is quite possible I've missed non-English or differently-transliterated sources. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom. I mostly found Wiki mirrors and unreliable sources, nothing reliable that can verify the content in the article. A person who was part of a Pakistani movie like Khuda Kay Liye (Production Manager and Assistant Director) and still couldn't find a mention in any of the Pakistani newspapers or other reliable sources, is somewhere between non notable and hoax for me. -- SMS ^Talk 18:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced BLP. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:21, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman[edit]

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

A pair of well-respected admins seem to have a disagreement about the best disposition of this 5-year-unreferenced, allegedly promotional biography of a living person. I'm shipping this to AfD, this has waited too long to properly sort out.

The previous reason given by one of those two admins is "Completely unreferenced since its creation in 2005. 'Notability' tags have come and gone along with many reverts of unsourced content and vandalism." j⚛e decker ^talk 05:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would like to take a shot at it and play a mediator role to keep it from being deleted, there is no doubt about notability of this person. It's only matter of finding proper sources and removing promotional content instead of removing the whole article. I would also like to mention that i have no personal affiliation with this person. As a matter of fact i have not seen this article myself so far.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He is a well-known Pakistani media tycoon and is the founder of the Geo Television Network, which is Pakistan's largest television network. He also owns the Jang Group of Newspapers, one of the largest group of newspapers and publishing in the country. The recent additions of references by User:Smsarmad have elevated the article's sourcing. Mar4d (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination As far as I'm concerned, notability is uncontroversially established now via sources in the article. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:52, 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mosh News[edit]

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

Absolutely no indication of any form of notability. It looks impressive enough, sure, except almost all of the references are related to the magazine's subjects rather than the magazine. While they were nominated for an award, it was an award from a local newspaper in Hull. Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overblown claims. Close to speedy for spam. --Randykitty (talk) 04:25, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- Little evidence for its claims. It all feels like hot air to me! Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open Classroom Charter School of Salt Lake City[edit]

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

Delete, attempted a redirect to district page as this is a non notable elementary and middle school. Edit was reverted by User:Orlady stating that school seemed notable and to take to AFD. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this to be a rare case of a notable elementary school. After the nominator PRODed this article, I deprodded it and added citations to a speech by the head of the state education department, in which he highlighted the school's "unique philosophy", and a website about a documentary film about innovative schools that includes some sort of mention of this school. Additionally, the school is featured in a book, and a search in Google Scholar turned up several journal articles that appear to be about this school, but I don't have full-text access: [29], [30], [31]. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. 19:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 19:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Close as a content dispute as per WP:Deletion policy The nominator made a redirect under Editorial policy and was reverted. The fact that two editors have agreed to challenge each other at AfD does not bind the community. The place to discuss content disputes is on the talk page of the article, which currently has no discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unxcintillating, I respectfully suggest that this is not a content dispute. This is an entirely appropriate topic for an AFD. The issue here is not the content of the article, but rather the question of whether the article topic is notable per WP criteria. --Orlady (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'm not in conflict with Orlady at all. I prefer deletion honestly but they usually are redirected so that was what I did. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The argument for deletion was contrived to allow the creation of a discussion here. Since WP:N is not a content policy, I can see why you might argue that this is not a content dispute, but I have cited Editing policy. Unscintillating (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any basis for calling this a content dispute, Unscintillating. It is generally agreed that the vast majority of elementary schools are not notable, and therefore should not have articles. Many AFDs for elementary schools end by redirecting the page to the school district article, which is what Hell in a Bucket did in this case. The question here is notability, not content. I am not arguing about article content; I am just saying that this particular school is notable. --Orlady (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that there is no theoretical case for deletion here, only redirect-without-deletion, merge, or keep? Unscintillating (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I think that's what the AfD discussion is for: to determine whether there is a case for deletion or not. The nominator has advanced a valid reason for deletion under the deletion policy, which is that this school is not notable. Redirects and merges can be suggested as alternatives to deletion at AfD. I see no reason why we should speedily close this discussion. Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 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) 00:43, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Kush (Kunar)[edit]

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

I'm not sure what this article is about, but if there is material of value in it, it could be included in the existing article Hindu Kush. SchreiberBike talk 00:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salvageable bits from "Importance to Hindus" section into Hindu Kush. If there is nothing salvageable, then delete, since this article appears to duplicate that one. (Note the lead sentence, "Hindu Kush is a mountain of the Hindu Kush.") Cnilep (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing much makes any sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 18 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See a list of similar articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography#Kush/Mountain articles. Cnilep (talk) 07:35, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary duplication, as I suggested above. The section I suggested might be merged has been removed by the page's creator and main editor. Cnilep (talk) 00:05, 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 / 04:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azarbaijan Tehran F.C.[edit]

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

Unsourced and a one line article. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 19:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Reason - No sources found. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 19:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfly's comment: You should argue that there are no sources or something like that. That an article is one line is no argument. I have little doubt that this will be deleted (cause I looked and I found no sources--at least not with my alphabet), but please, give proper reasons. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it with a better reason. I meant there are no sources when I said unsourced. Thanks for the advice. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 22:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. On a side note, the article creator seems to be a SPA who creates/edits non-notable Iranian football clubs - perhaps an uninvolved admin (@Drmies:, seeing as you're here?) could leave them a polite message? GiantSnowman 20:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a brief note, but since I'm not a FOOTY expert (as you know--I only care about Ajax) I can't address the notability thing in specifics (like, which leagues carry automatic notability and such). But the supply of material this editor has access to can't be infinite; at some point they'll run out of clubs. Let's see if they respond, here or at their talk page. Thanks for the suggestion. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many thanks. I think the lack of sourcing is the main concern at the moment. I'm sure some of their creations are notable - though not all - but the lack of any RS makes it seem worse than it is. Giant Snowman 09:37, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG for sure... JMHamo (talk) 13:31, 7 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. No agreement amongst participants as to whether the coverage is sufficient to indicate notability beyond WP:NOTNEWS. A possible merge, as advocated by some, can of course continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Mardan funeral bombing[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NOTNEWS, suggest deletion.--Mishae (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was added to the log for 14 February 2014. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A suicide bombing that killed 28+ and is noted in the BBC and the "New York Times" is Definitely Notable and hands down meets WP:NOTNEWS.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources I found were from June 2013. Sad but ultimately insignificant. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs expansion not deletion. is within notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per statements above. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Theres not to expand, its to find coverage that prooves last effect. Sadly not true. Beerest 2 talk 02:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Shergarh, Mardan. In theory, for a tragedy like this the correct action would be to expand but the event seems sadly underreported. Due to a lack of coverage, I would suggest merging this to the article for the location where it took place. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:57, 18 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Terrorist attack with 28 fatalities. Notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This incident is also mentioned on the page Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. The page for the incident itself should be deleted I think, but the information on the Terrorist Incidents in Pakistan in 2013 regarding this bombing should be expanded and hold more information. Adamh4 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stifle I disagree per WP:EVENT. While suicide bombings do happen often in Pakistan, this is one of the largest death tolls sustained in one in the year of 2013 (see Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013 ). Because it is one of the larger attacks, it either should be kept, or giving a larger section on the other page. Adamh4 (talk) 22:33, 27 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} 04:50, 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 no consensus. A distinct possibility of a merge exists in this discussion, which can be further delineated on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Guildhall at SMU[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:GNG. University departments are not notable by default, see also Wikipedia:Notability (universities). Seems it was kept seven years ago; since then the article has not been developed at all, and I think our policies are more clear on this. Pinging participants of the former AfD: User:JzG, User:GroovySandwich, User:Josh Parris, User:Hahnchen , User:TJ Spyke, User:Nuttah, User: Pizzahut2, User:Drew30319, User:RockMFR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:28, 14 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) 20:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Or merge. Passes WP:N now like it did 7 years ago. Sources available - [32][33][34]. - hahnchen 21:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are those sources reliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't seem the situation has changed since the previous afd. The reasoning to keep it isn't just because it is a university department, which is the argument presented by the nominator. — RockMFR 15:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, individually trivial but worthy of mention in the wider article on SMU. This does not require AfD. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: It's just a building on a college campus, let's put it there. If there was more information on it, it might need it's own article, but not with what we've got here. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:54, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although move/merge to a new list article on buildings or departments at SMU would be okay too. I've noticed a number of AFDs on university buildings recently, despite it being pretty well established that a list of any major university's buildings is fine to have, separate from the university main article. For SMU, there is navigation template ((Southern Methodist University)) which lists a number of buildings already having articles. Definitely okay would be a list-article listing those individually notable ones and also lesser ones. --doncram 17:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doncram: If this was a building, I wouldn't have nominated it here. If it is, the article gives no hint that's the case; I nominated it as as an organization that doesn't pass Notability (Organizations), and presumably is located in one or several rooms within a part of a larger and likely notable university building. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems from http://www.smu.edu/Guildhall/AboutUs/GeneralFAQ that it is a program/department in one building. I grant I don't know what the origin of the term "Guildhall" is, although it sounds like a building. There is no indication that the program is located in a building of that name though. I agree the notability depends on the program/department. --do ncr am 11:39, 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. Regarding the potential for a merge, a merge discussion can be continued on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Me: Truth[edit]

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

Part of a rather spammy small walled garden around Finding Me. The original movie may be barely notable, this sequal doesn't seem to be notable at all. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. --Jakob (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to keep per sources. --Jakob (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm trying to scratch out some sources, but offhand I think that both AfDs might end as a redirect to the main article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finding_Me#Other_media. It ended up being pretty much what I expected: there was enough coverage to have a page for the first film and a mention of the followups in a subsection, but not enough for an individual article for each project. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~If no sourcing is readily available then merge to Finding Me. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)~~ [WP:Ban 03:52, 25 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and thus WP:NF, some quite substantive in content. WP:SIGCOV is met. [35][36][37][38][39][40][41] And to Tokyogirl79, merging this with the first film may be worth discussing on talk pages after a notable topic is kept. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sourcing identified. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:52, 25 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Screenpresso[edit]

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

Non-notable product. All of the "references" are either how-to articles or offer little coverage and none meet WP:RS. I can't find any other sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a concrete example of a correct reference ? Thanks, --Techwritter31 (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:RS, which Walter Görlitz linked above, and WP:GNG.Dialectric (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Current refs are blogs/how-to/download sites, or very brief reviews, and do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources, with the possible exception of the Lifehacker article which is longer and comes from a RS, but alone is not sufficient to establish notability. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 00:34, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As Dialectric says, the Lifehacker review is the most substantial (indeed the article has two separate links to it), but neither that nor anything else that I can see amount to more than mundane product reviews, and don't demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who knows, this might be the next $16B app, but presently it fails wp:gng. The 3-4 paragraphs in lifehacker don't convince me otherwise. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:40, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Family Portrait[edit]

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

I do not believe this is a notable example of 20th-century portraiture. Four citations are provided for the article, of which three are dead links to the artists personal website, the remaining link is a contemporaneous account of the portraits creation, but not artistic content, from a local newspaper. I can find no national or international critical coverage of the portrait since its 1995 creation, other than mirrors of this article. The article was created by a sockpuppet of a since banned user, User:Johnqdillion. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think this article is non-notable. (first time participating in a discussion like this...let me know if I'm out of line in any way!) Rssyng (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added an additional reference from the Enclopedia of Arkansas History and culture. Maybe that will help with notability since it is a sanctioned website of the state of Arkansas carljenningtown

Fixed one of the dead links "Different Strokes" newspaper article carljenningstown|talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — User:carljenningstown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to the artists' page where it's already discussed. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:55, 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) 08:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a couple more references that should resolve any previously mentioned issues. carljenningstown —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Referenced and of a notable subject. I have added more categories. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be of a notable subject, but it is not a notable portrait. Indeed, the quoted reference states that the Clinton White house didn't even know where it was. We need national or international coverage, more than a just brief flurry of local media coverage. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that we needed to proceed according "wikipedia notability guidelines", not make up our own policy. This article falls completely within the perameters of wikipedia notability guidelines. It does not require any subject to be nationally or internationally famous to be included with a stand alone article. It just has to be covered by several secondary and third party reliable sources independent of the proposed subject. This article meets all of those requirements that are mentioned in wikipedia inclusion guidelines. carljenningstown (talk) 6:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)— User:carljenningstown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - I still feel the sources are weak. This painting has no notability beyond the original local media coverage of its creation. The painting has since vanished, I cannot find records for it in the White House Art Collection or the Clinton Presidential Library. We need more contributors to this discussion! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:31, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the author can elaborate on why the painting is significant. I don't feel like there is enough information to establish notability as is. :-) Bali88 (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Larry D. Alexander. Notability is not inherited: just being a picture of the Clintons (the only reason it has recieved attention) does not make it notable. As a painting, I don't think the man who made it would merit an article on his painting activities alone (no works in major collections), so it's hard to see how this one work would be the subject of any critical attention.TheLongTone (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at most Redirect to the artist. Ariconte (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - referenced and notable I have to agree. Seem to have recieved a lot of attention when made.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per BabbaQ. --do ncr am 17:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All attention is the result of the giver & recipient being notable. Nothing to do with the painting itself. There is no content that cannot quite comfortably &more properly be included in the article on this preacher.TheLongTone (talk) 17:30, 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. No evidence provided or argument made that the subject meets WP:GNG j⚛e decker ^talk 04:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QTest eXplorer[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Refs don't support notability. I can't find any other RSes to support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Current refs are from the company and a press release and do not constitute significant RS coverage. A search revealed incidental mentions, but no significant coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:51, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 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. No evidence provided or argument made that the subject meets WP:GNG j⚛e decker ^talk 04:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QTrace[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Only the TechRepublic article is from a Reliable Source. I can't find anything else that marks this as notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Current refs do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources - As above, TechRepublic is RS coverage, but is a how-to article, and on its own not sufficient to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:48, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 04:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Weaver[edit]

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

This producer is hardly notable when none of the work he has produced is notable. He has 1 reliable source about him and it's only about 1 film he produced. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Weaver has been one of the most successful literary managers in Hollywood over the past five years by any measure. In 2013 alone he set up 14 spec screenplays and 6 feature film pitches for his clients (https://specscout.com/yearendscorecards), several of which he is attached to produce along with the buyers, and that doesn't include his arguably most important deal of 2013: The straight to series order for "Extant," the sci-fi drama project that CBS bought for Steven Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment to produce that is currently in production. Weaver is an executive producer on that series (http://www.deadline.com/2013/08/hot-amblin-tv-sci-fi-spec-extant-lands-at-cbs-with-13-episode-order-for-summer-14/). His career as a feature film producer is just getting started, but his most recent producer credit is inarguably notable: He received executive producer credit on the Christian Bale/Casey Affleck/Woody Harrelson film "Out of the Furnace," which was directed by Scott Cooper and released in late 2013 (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0915819/?ref_=nv_sr_1). His next feature film credit will be producer of "Run All Night" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2199571/?ref_=nm_flmg_prd_2), a Warner Bros. film starring Liam Neeson and Joel Kinnaman and directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, which recently wrapped production. - Scogginsreporter — Scogginsreporter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete, eyh, I don't see that he meets WP:BIO. Seems to be very good at their job, and involved in some big name projects, but the coverage presented seems to be all about the projects, not about Weaver themselves. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:21, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to KPMG. slakr^\ talk / 04:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Mitchell[edit]

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

seems to be a lack of independent sources - vast majority information is corporate promotional stuff from kpmg, tagged for notability since September 2012 _nonsense ferret 15:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably merge There's a short passage in The History of the German Public Accounting Profession by Hugh Brian Markus p299[42]. But not much else online that I can see. Maybe someone has other offline sources (I'm sure there must be a rich history of fascinating accountancy periodicals and books). But some info could be added to KPMG#History about Marwick Mitchell & Co and its founders (it's not clear that MM&Co is particularly notable either except for its place in the history of KPMG). --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. As one the founders of a firm that now employs 152,000 people he is obviously notable. I have no association with this firm whatsoever but am amazed that anyone could suggest that he is not notable. By extension that effectively rules out all biographies of accountants from wiki (as he is one of the most notable) and for that matter all lawyers. Is it only politicians and celebrities that are notable? Dormskirk (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as you well know, it's people for whom we can point to multiple examples of independent significant coverage in reliable sources that are notable. If you have such coverage, by all means provide it. Wasn't it in fact the case that he was a co-founder of a firm that was merged with another firm that was then merged with another firm? Not quite the same as the claim you are making I feel. It is worth also clarifying that this isn't a single firm that employs 152,000 people either - it is a loose association of different member firms in different countries with separate legal entities - by implication you are saying that every single founder in the hundreds of firms joining that association or was ever merged to a firm that merged to another firm that joined that association should be notable - a little extensive I would suggest. --_nonsense ferret 22:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that he is the Mitchell from Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. which evolved into KPMG (rather than a co-founder of a firm that was merged with another firm that was then merged with another firm) so he was really quite important to the history of that profession. Dormskirk (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His importance to the accountancy industry as a whole would surely be demonstrated by an ample supply of independent sources providing significant coverage which nobody has provided despite the article being tagged for notability issues since September 2012. Bearing in mind that he was not ever a member of the KPMG firm, which was formed of a merger of Peat Marwick McClintock and several other firms - perhaps you can see my point from this diagram diagram from the icaew showing the very numerous firms - your argument seems to be suggesting in the absence of significant coverage that every founding partner of every firm in the diagram has some automatic notability due to Peat Marwick McLintock going on to form part of KPMG?. --_nonsense ferret 01:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Your diagram is very helpful. It shows that from 1925 to 1987 (over 60 years) the firm that evolved into KPMG was known as Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. To be clear I am only arguing that Klijnveld, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Goerdeler (and possibly McLintock) are notable. By the way I have just googled Peat Marck Mitchell and got over 76,000 hits. Dormskirk (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely arbitrary. Will all those WP:GHITS I shall look forward to seeing some references to examples of significant independent coverage from reliable sources. --_nonsense ferret 22:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How about Hoovers? They mention Roger Mitchell in the second line. Dormskirk (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you contending that passing mention meets the depth of coverage required to establish notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC --_nonsense ferret 22:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made my reasons very clear from the start of this. As one the founders of a firm that now employs 152,000 people he is obviously notable. And I have demonstated that he was one of the founders (after all his name appeared in the name of the firm for over 60 years). Dormskirk (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

call me a stickler for the rules, but I much prefer claims to notability that are based on guidelines and independent significant coverage, rather than just 'obvious' --_nonsense ferret 15:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a summary to KPMG#History. The present firm is certainly notable, but that does not mean that the predecessors, whose names happen to have survived are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and in fact, to be clear, his wasn't one of the names that survived. The M of KPMG is Marwick. --_nonsense ferret 15:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. But the fact remains that for 60 years the main firm that evolved into KPMG was known as Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. and readers might well wonder who Mitchell was. Dormskirk (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Peterkingiron. Nonsenseferret and Dormskirk make good points, but Mitchell's contribution to PMM&Co. and then KPMG can be summarized within the history section of the firm's article, and Mitchell doesn't seem to be notable for any other reason. Ivanvector (talk) 15:38, 7 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Development Planning Unit (DPU)[edit]

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

Promotional article that does not establish the notability of its subject; sources are either affiliated or pertain to some research project of this institute, without describing the institute itself in any depth. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete sources are mainly primary and as it stands looks like some promo for the unit. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weal keep -- This is on a university department, offering certain post-graduate degrees, probably ones that have few equaivalents elsewhere. A lot of the staff are notable enough to have articles, which points to some notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are either primary or do not mention the unit. Individual departments seldom have independent notability and this "small and specialized" one seems no exception. The long lists of programs and staff seem like the department using Wikipedia to tell the world about itself; that is not what an encyclopedia is for. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Bartlett#The_Development_Planning_Unit_.28DPU.29. The standalone article is not notable, but there is some material in the history section which could usefully be added to the The Bartlett. The detailed info on each course is too detailed to be retained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:09, 7 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Bartelt[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2008. Low h-index, very little coverage in reliable sources in the article or anywhere else (as far as I can tell). Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Jinkinson talk to me 03:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Jinkinson talk to me 03:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator's assessment is accurate. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 23 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 05:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very low h-index (3) and her criticisms of creationism don't seem prominent enough to pass WP:GNG. -- 101.119.15.113 (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- low h-index in a field where such things matter (chemistry) and as 101.119... says, her criticisms of creationism do not seem to have enough news coverage to pass GNG. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF for her scientific publications nor of passing WP:GNG for her anti-creationism. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of PROF notability evidence. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:18, 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Algorithmic program debugging[edit]

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

No evidence that this method has achieved any notability. Suggest converting to a redirect to Ehud Shapiro where it is already adequately covered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a new page which should be nurtured rather than deleted per our editing policy. It seems quite easy to find substantial sources such as Automated and Algorithmic Debugging and Algorithmic Debugging. Perhaps we should get an algorithm written to process new pages which would ensure that simple steps like WP:BEFORE were followed. Andrew (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have a lot more sources when searching for declarative debugging, another term for it. At least with Google Books it goes for page after page, looks like a well known topic. -- GreenC 17:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The original paper was written more than 30 years back and there are good amount of sources on this topic in google. Unatnas1986 (talk) 06:46, 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EFAF Atlantic Cup[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, as all sources I can find are primary (and almost all come from the Irish side of things), do not classify as significant coverage, or are of dubious reliability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Atlantic Cup (football), same nominator, where consensus was that coverage is adequate, and which was closed as "Keep". --do ncr am 11:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable football tournament that fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since people seem to constantly be missing this, this is an American Football tournament, not an association football tournament, so it does not fall under WP:FOOTBALL's remit, but WP:WikiProject American football instead. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, WikiProject American Football notified of this discussion, just now, by me. --do ncr am 23:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what? As far as I know, there is no separate notability guideline established for tournaments in either sport. The AFD that I mentioned included discussion about whether it met wp:GNG, only. And, here too, I expect there has been television coverage of the games, and numerous news articles, in English and perhaps also in other languages. I don't see evidence here of anyone really searching, and perhaps mere Google and Google news searching is not enough. In the other AFD, participants did some additional searching. I really rather presume that there has been plenty of news coverage of the games, so that we can safely assume it is a notable tournament series. --do ncr am 00:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, that wasn't aimed at you specifically. It was intended so that no one else added it to the WikiProject Football deletion list. And you haven't presented anything on this series anyway, and I'm doubting if you did any searching (whilst ironically claiming that no-one else here did - well, I did look for things, and didn't find anything properly independent that was obviously a RS and in-depth) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i just added some material and references, from a couple newspaper sources, to the article. Fair enough to call on me to add something, now done. Thanks for replying, i wasn't sure if you were aiming at me or not. I stand with Keep vote, as I do believe there exists plenty of news coverage of these tournaments. One of the sources describes the cup as "the official western European amateur football crown", besides mentioning that the Belfast Trojans team "benefited greatly from the presence of former NFL Europe lineman Jeroen Egge who, along with the few Americans involved, has greatly boosted the knowledge and skills of those from other sporting backgrounds." From what I've read about these leagues, it seems that teams are limited to 2 or 3 Americans, and the core members are from the country of the team. Seems like fun, if i were in Ireland i might be a fan. --do ncr am 01:12, 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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 04:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Future[edit]

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

A new (founded last year) music production company that doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. Creator has asserted that the publication of some of their music tracks by a third party publisher counts as a reliable third-party source, and has pointed to a blog entry, but merely having music published doesn't count as sufficient notability under WP:BAND. The closest thing to a third-party source in the article is a blog entry that includes the name of the group in a track listing, hardly in-depth coverage. Nat Gertler (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appreciate the opportunity to discuss this page. After taking a look at notability under Music guidelines I believe the article meets the standard under Composers, specifically #1 "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." - the 2 remixes listed are examples of where lyrics were delivered by the original artist and all the music was written by Modern Future. #3 under composers could fit as well since it was OMD and The Wombats that released the music: "Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria." It's worth noting that these are pretty notable artists. For example, OMD has sold over 40 million albums.^[1] --PingreePark (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Interview: Andy McCluskey, OMD". PRS for Music Online Magazine. 19 March 2013. Retrieved 1 October 2013.

I don't see any signs that the remixes are notable per our guidelines for notability of musical compositions. And it seems a stretch to say that the remixes were the basis for a "later composition" by those artists; by the nature of a remix, the remix is the later composition based on the works of those artists, not the other way 'round. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The song "Your Body Is A Weapon" would fit under the notability of music compositions I believe - It's currently #16 on Sirius XM's Alt Nation chart. While it isn't the remix that's charting I think your reading of "for" is possibly too narrow - this was an official remix of a charting song (it was "for" the notable composition) and would definitely belong on the page for the track once that's made. The release it was on also included notable acts such as Diplo and Afrojack. Considering the level of the company I think Modern Future's composition is notable. PingreePark (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you seem to be arguing is that Modern Future inherits the notability of non-MF versions of the song and from being on a list that includes notable acts. I suggest you read WP:NOTINHERITED to understand why notability (in the Wikipedia sense) does not flow like that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's only half my argument - I don't mind dropping that portion. The first part of my rebuttal holds I believe. PingreePark (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, both halves were assuming some inheritance of notability; you are somehow trying to get them notability for the success of a version of the song that they did not work on, because they also worked on another version of the song. But even barring that, the first half argument is dependent on a single broadcaster's Alt Music chart being considered one of the national or significant music or sales charts, and if you check what that links to (link copied from WP:NSONGS), you will find that the Sirius XM chart is not there and does not qualify. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The song is also currently #48 on the US Alt Chart.PingreePark (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about Billboard's Alternative Songs chart, I believe that chart only goes to #40... but it's a moot point anyway, as that's not Modern Future's song on the chart. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else care to chime in? I think the page should be kept. It's been up here for a week now. PingreePark (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The relisted discussion is now a week old.PingreePark (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nomination. Maybe they will be notable one day, but as for now..._noisy jinx ^huh? 20:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources hugely fail WP:RS. That means the article fails WP:V. Even setting that aside, the argument for notability is a pretty big stretch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 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 redirect to Flying Testicle. Black Kite (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lamerican Sextom[edit]

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

No reliable sources listed. A quick google search turned up no news about the band or their songs. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flying Testicle as not notable; band has a slight claim to notability, but anything in an edition of 10 is going to struggle. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flying Testicle. Non-notable single which does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria set out at WP:NSONG. --DAJF (talk) 05:06, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Testicle[edit]

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

No reliable sources listed. No obvious claim of notability. A quick google search turned up no news, only a list of their songs on a few disparate music sites. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep It meets WP:BAND #6, with Masami Akita (aka Merzbow) and Zev Asher both notable figures; Yamazaki Maso (aka Masonna) also has an article but maybe isn't so well-known. No obvious evidence of coverage beyond mentions in articles on the members, though any reviews will be offline. If there was an obvious merge/redirect candidate, I'd say merge or redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per WP:BAND point six. All three musicians are well known within their own rather specialised genre. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:45, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per point 6 of WP:BAND. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chomskybot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable program. Completely fails even the general notability guidelines. To quote the last discussion: "has anyone ever written anything about it that's not in a blog or forum?" The prevailing arguments for keeping in the last discussion was the number of Google hits and that it was a "reasonably-well known" script that's been around for a fairly long time, neither of which satisfy the notability requirements. Inanygivenhole (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If a few reliable sources can be found, then make this page a redirect and add a line or two in the main Noam Chomsky page. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searches on Google Books turn up dozens of hits from published books, some of which (e.g., a writeup in New Riders' Official World Wide Web Yellow Pages) are substantial coverage rather than passing mentions. The article should be expanded using these third-party sources, not deleted on the mistaken and apparently untested assumption that they don't exist. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked through the seven pages of Google books results and found Wikipedia scrapers (fake books whose contents are Wikipedia articles), trivial mentions (e.g. mentioning it briefly in the lineage of other software [43]; a footnote that mentions Chomskybot as an example of something that could be coded in Perl [44]), circular references (descriptions of Chomskybot that refer back to Wikipedia for more details e.g. [45]), and many books that do not mention Chomskybot because Google apparently no longer makes it possible to filter out the results that it thinks are related but that do not include the actual search phrase. With the possible exception of the Yellow Pages book mentioned by Psychonaut, what I did not find is anything in-depth that could be used as an argument for notability based on WP:GNG. Google scholar also came up empty. As for Google web search itself, I think the most recent xkcd is apposite. So unless new and better specific references turn up, I am not convinced by the "just do a search" argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per David Eppstein. 8 years since last review (under much easier AfD standards in 2006) should have been enough time for non-passing citations in journals or mainstream press. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein's astute analysis. --Randykitty (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also agree with David Eppstein's analysis. The two or three brief mentions in RS books don't rise to the level of wp:notability. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. David's analysis covers it. This cruft is not encyclopedic and doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 04:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Lawler[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Apparently best known for creating a program which utterly fails even the general notability guidelines, also fails the academic notability guidelines. I would suggest merging the two, but I don't see how either are notable enough to warrant an article, even if combined. Inanygivenhole (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep. The nominator presents no basis for their belief that Chomskybot "utterly fails" the notability guidelines. (On the contrary; it seems to be quite notable, with plenty of reliable sources.) If there is no evidence that Lawler himself is notable (and I haven't had time to do a detailed search myself—has the nominator bothered to do so this time?) I suggest the relevant parts of this article be merged into Chomskybot. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can produce the sources that you say exist for Chomskybot, I'd be more than happy to support Lawler's page redirecting to his bot. I can't find much on Lawler aside from a few university pages that don't do anything to establish notability. Inanygivenhole (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. His citation record seems too slim to support a pass of WP:PROF, but perhaps this is more because of the time in which he published than because of a lack of impact. Regardless, we need evidence of his impact to keep the article, and if not provided in this way then how? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not have citation count in CS to support passing WP:PROF#C1 on that basis and do not see other evidence in the form of awards, chairs, etc. to support a pass on PROF or GNG grounds. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inanygivenhole -- as elsewhere, your overall somewhat snotty tone concerning a subject you seem to know very little about, distinctly fails to impress. Anyway, what Lawler is probably most known for among linguists is actually his having a fairly high on-line profile during the 1990s, in a way that was not then too common among fully employed academic linguists. He really is not tied exclusively to the Chomskybot... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the childish personal attack (must I remind you of WP:CIVIL yet again?): the article itself said that he was "best known" for Chomskybot, and I wasn't aware that having a "fairly high on-line profile" made you pass WP:ACADEMIC... Inanygivenhole (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice -- you seem to be on some kind of rampage against things peripherally connected with Chomsky (which looks rather suspicious to start with), and then when you choose to adopt a rather snide sneering jeering tone concerning subjects which you seem to know very little about, you are really not showing yourself to best advantage. AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit history clearly reflects that I came across the articles while browsing (I was looking at other bots similar to Chomskybot) and then decided that several weren't notable or had questionable notability. Your ludicrous accusations of a "rampage against things peripherally connected with Chomsky" is unfounded and I once again encourage you to be civil and assume good faith. Inanygivenhole (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you have good intentions at some level, but you would have been a lot less annoying if you had been less emphatic and assertive and superior in tone concerning subjects which you seem to have very little knowledge about.... AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done anything but complain? Inanygivenhole (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete per David Eppstein. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 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 merge to arXiv. slakr^\ talk / 04:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SnarXiv[edit]

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

Non-notable web content. Utterly fails even the general notability guidelines. At best it seems to be a one-off academic triviality given the Nature reference. Inanygivenhole (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - even given a mention in Nature, it's just a curio of no lasting significant. Move content into arXiv article. Leondz (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had a go at finding significant coverage in reliable sources; either they don't exist or my Google-fu is unusually weak today. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Psychonaut; passing mentions, even in the two top scientific journals in the world, do not establish notability. Jinkinson talk to me 00:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: Given the top scientific journal mentions this should not be deleted. A section under arXiv with a redirect would be appropriate if not kept as a separate article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as a scientist leaning out of the ivory tower, I am left wondering - trivial novelties specific to other fields are no more notable or impactful than ours, so why should the individual publication that they're mentioned in as a one-off have a special weight in our field? Leondz (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but do not merge with ArXiv. I would prefer top scientific journals, not google, to be the measure of notability. Arcfrk (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But we couldn't create an article for everything mentioned at least once in an top journal - that's what the journal itself is for Leondz (talk) 22:35, 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 17:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cawo Mohamed Abdi[edit]

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

She is still only an assistant professor, and has very few publications. Meets neither WP:PROF nor GNG/ DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cawo is actually one of the main figures in Somali Studies. She is both a Research Fellow at the University of Pretoria and an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota. She is also the wife of Abdi Ismail Samatar, who is himself a prominent scholar within the field and the brother of former President of Somalia candidate Ahmed Ismail Samatar. Additionally, Cawo has published many works; what's listed on the page is only a selected bibliography. She is likewise a member of many professional organizations, and has chaired a number of international conferences, including the 2012 Istanbul Conference on Somalia. She is also on the editorial board of Bildhaan: An International Journal of Somali Studies, published by Macalester College. Middayexpress (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence might show notability, if there are independent sources that attest to this claim (there aren't any in the current version of the article). The other points in your statement are not related to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough evidence of impact. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete -- still a bit too soon, lacking clear documented evidence of a substantial impact on the larger field. Editorial board participation is not enough; editor of the Journal would be sufficient for me. The standard for assistant professors is rather high. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cawo is actually both a writer and professor [46]. Bildhaan: An International Journal of Somali Studies is one of the main journals in Somali Studies, and she is on its International Advisory Board along with Nuruddin Farah, Said Sheikh Samatar, and a number of other prominent scholars within the field [47]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but these are more things that do not further a notability argument. What will help is secondary sources that discuss her and her expertise specifically and/or some sort of demonstration that the academic world feels her work has impact (e.g. citations, book holdings, etc). She is an assistant professor, so is unlikely to satisfy any of the other, more difficult aspects of WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree that it doesn't further a notability argument -- to me, it does help, because the quality of the journal reflects and is built up by the reputation of the people on the board (sort of like the prestige of a prize comes in part from its rarity and the prestige of others who have received it). I just don't think that it's enough notability to pass WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mscuthbert, please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MSC: I agree in principle that being a member of an editorial board helps, but only if the journal is a mainstream, established publication. As far as I can tell, "Bildhaan" is still very obscure. It is published by a small liberal arts college, has very low circulation, is not indexed by the major indexing services, not cited to any meaningful degree, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. She seems to have one book that is only held by 4 institutions. Agricola44 (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

That's not actually a book, but an article in short book form. Her upcoming book is still a manuscript. What she does have is many different peer-reviewed journal articles to her name, including commissioned reports for both the Canadian and American governments. I also just had a look at WP:PROF. It states that "academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable", including that "the person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)". Cawo qualifies since she is a member of several such scholarly societies, like the American Sociological Association, Sociologists for Women in Society, Midwest Sociological Society, African Studies Association, Canadian Sociological Association and Global Studies Association. Her work has also been cited by a number of other scholars in the field, thereby also establishing that "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Additionally, the fact that she has chaired several international conferences in an academic capacity (e.g. the Istanbul Conference on Somalia in 2012 organized by the Turkish government [48]) likewise establishes that she "has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Middayexpress (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the word "elected" when mentioning memberships. Just to be a member, all that is needed is to pay your dues... "Significant impact" is not shown by a handful of citations, typically hundreds or more are needed to show notability here. Nor do I see any evidence that she was the chair of that Istanbul meeting (and even if she were, we would need some evidence that this was a major meeting): she is not mentioned in the link you gave and her CV is a bit ambiguous and rather suggests that she was chair of a sub-panel session only. --Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did notice the word "elected", and the American Sociological Association for one holds annual elections for its members [49]. Further, WP:PROF says nothing about hundreds of citations being required. It just says that "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" is "demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This is established by the many scholarly works on Google Scholar which cite Cawo's research [50]. Also, the link I gave on the Istanbul conference was to show the importance of that event. The fact that she served as a Chair at the Istanbul conference is clearly indicated in her CV under the header "Chairing" as well as the note below it that she served as a "Chair" there. Middayexpress (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an election for officers of the association, not members. The guideline does not mention absolute numbers of citations, because that depends on the field. In a field like this, 500 citations or an h-index of 10 or 12 might indicate notability. In a field like neuroscience, you'd need more than 1000 citations and an h-index of 20 or more. And I'm afraid that being a chair of a session at a meeting is really nothing special. Invited plenary speaker, that could be something different, invited session speaker or chair is not. --Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. I agree with Xxanthippe and Mscuthbert: too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a classic case of WP:TOOSOON for an early-in-career assistant professor doing the typical work and having output on par with others of the same rank in academia: 1 book with 4 institutional holdings, 4 articles in indexed journals cited 5 times (h-index 1, WoS), some editorial work, conference organizing, member of technical societies, etc. – all the fodder of every academic. Arguments above that such things demonstrate notability represent a basic misunderstanding of the guidelines in WP:PROF as established by the precedent of many hundreds of academic's AfDs. This is an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:18, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Bulić[edit]

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

Article about a football player that claims a youth career with Velez Mostar, however his professional career seems to have been with Mtarfa F.C., which would fail to meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTY. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 13:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:14, 23 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) 16:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Has not played in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to cover GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails both the general notabilty guideline and the subject-specific notability guideline, as the footballer hasn't received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. Mentoz (talk) 21:36, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plain Talk Politics[edit]

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

None of the independent references given but one says anything about Plain Talk Politics (as opposed to identifying someone as being on its staff). (The one exception mentions the beginning of the radio program. I'm not counting the one from ncspin, which my antivirus software kept me from visiting.) Google turns up fewer than 60 hits, none helping to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pathetically struggles to conceal the fact that there just isn't the requisite substantive coverage of the subject. Instead, we get a long series of casual passing mentions strung together. It just doesn't pass the requisite standards for notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per non. reddogsix (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - gives appearance to be largely a P.R./promotional outlet for some sort of commercial media endeavor, rather than providing material info on the subject. recent edits, references, and explanations suggest same. --Bartholomew J Roberts (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are either bare mentions, articles by the founder, or non-independent sites (which have also got or had articles by this author). PR stuff, in my opinion. More neutrally written than some of the rest, but there's no real show of notability and a fairly certain COI problem. Peridon (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW my AV allowed me to visit ncspin, and you didn't miss much. I didn't even see this article's subject mentioned. Definitely nothing in depth about it, and the author's username suggests that it's rather close to their heart. Peridon (talk) 10:44, 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. Consensus to keep, largely based on WP:AUTHOR. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aviva Chomsky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability is not inherited. A frightening number of Noam's family members seem to have inherited notability from him, and there is a distinct lack of third-party sources that demonstrate Aviva's independent notability. The closest thing to a legitimate claim of notability I can find is that West Indian Workers and United Fruit Company won a rather unremarkable award.

I think either reducing this to an entry on the Chomsky disambiguation page or merging West Indian Workers and United Fruit Company (and further attempting to establish independent notability in the article) into this article would be the best option. Inanygivenhole (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article makes no claim that she meets any of the requirements for WP:ACADEMIC. Merely publishing a book obviously does not establish a sufficient level of notability. mikeman67 (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chomsky's published a lot more than just "a book"; she's published about a dozen of them (including those for a general rather than strictly scholarly audience). Many of these books, along with her journal articles, have what look to me to be reasonably high citation counts in indexes such as Google Scholar, and have attracted professional reviews. She may therefore pass WP:AUTHOR (according to the first criterion) and/or WP:ACADEMIC (according to criteria 1 and 7). —Psychonaut (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Chomsky has also been interviewed a lot by sources which are possibly or indisputably reliable. For example, there is an interview in Der Standard (an Austrian national daily newspaper) and another in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Whether such interviews count as primary or secondary sources has been a matter of debate (see for example Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 153#When a reporter interviews the subject of a BLP does that mean the article they write is not "independent from the subject"...) though I think it's generally agreed that such interviews are evidence of notability, even though they cannot be used as reliable sources for any claims the BLP subject makes about him- or herself. Besides the interviews I found a short biography in The Writers Directory (St. James Press, 2005 edition), several short mentions in major newspapers of record reporting on her books and speaking engagements, and a couple further newspaper articles about her activism and a recent incident when she and her father were denied entry to Israel. The latter can be found via Highbeam. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. GS shows only decent citation rates for one of her books (West Indian Workers and United Fruit Company) and even that one at 130 cites is not that heavily cited. The other books have citations rates around 20. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. However, per the sources found by GreenC, meets WP:AUTHOR. --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet enough evidence yet of impact. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per AUTHOR multiple book reviews. The Delete !votes above are premised on PROF which she probably doesn't meet but she does have book review coverage in many journals. This is only an incomplete ebsco search, have no looked into Gale, JSTOR or ProQuest yet.

Revista de Estudios Hispanicos, Oct 2004, Vol. 38 Issue 3
Canadian Journal of Latin American & Caribbean Studies, 2009, Vol. 34 Issue 68
Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, (1475-3839), Oct 2005, Vol. 82 Issue 4
Wadabagei: A Journal of the Caribbean & Its Diasporas, Spring/Summer 2006, Vol. 9 Issue 2
A Contracorriente, Fall 2010, Vol. 8 Issue 1
Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Fall 2010, Vol. 38 Issue 2
Estudios Interdisciplinarios de America Latina y el Caribe, Jul-Dec 2010, Vol. 21 Issue 2
Dialectical Anthropology, 2010, Vol. 34 Issue 2
Journal of American History, Mar 2009, Vol. 95 Issue 4
American Historical Review, Oct 2009, Vol. 114 Issue 4
Canadian Journal of History, Winter 2009, Vol. 44 Issue 3
Journal of Third World Studies, Spring 2012, Vol. 29 Issue 1
Tikkun, May 2007
Publishers Weekly, Vol. 253 Issue 14
Multicultural Review, Fall 2007, Vol. 16 Issue 3
Publishers Weekly, Vol. 261 Issue 3
NWIG: New West Indian Guide / Nieuwe West-Indische Gids, 2012, Vol. 86 Issue 3/4

-- GreenC 02:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nom's first rationale that "Notability is not inherited" is incorrect. Please note that there is no rule about this. INHERIT is an essay meant to educate newbies on what not to say during an AfD discussion ie. don't just say someone is notable because of their birthright. It doesn't mean we are supposed to ignore sources, ignore WP:GNG and ignore WP:NOTE. Also, citing INHERIT in a nomination, before anyone has even !voted, is a misapplication of the essay which is part of the series "Arguments to avoid during an AfD discussion". It's a red hearing to bring it up in the nomination before anyone has even argued anything. -- GreenC 02:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing INHERIT in deletion nomination is a common, accepted practice dating back many years. Inanygivenhole (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have changed my !vote to "keep" based on GC's sources, I do agree with Inanygivenhole that there is nothing unusual in invoking NOTINHERITED. Notability has to be assessed independently for each subject on its own merits. --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

INHERIT is part of the essay series titled "Arguments to avoid during an AfD". There is no rule about INHERIT. It's an essay. For example, I have overturned AfDs at DRV when I was the only Keep vs multiple deletes, because using an essay to justify deletion is a weak position if there is any contention. -- GreenC 17:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom (talk · contribs) has a good insight into this. The truth is notability is inherited, and although usually it's not enough (so we can have a rule of thumb) - sometimes it is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're just repeating yourself. I've already responded to that: whether or not the essay pertains to it, it is a common and in my opinion very justified use of the essay. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The many book reviews listed by Green Cardamom (and several more in highbeam) are enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 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 / 04:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve House (Colorado)[edit]

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

As yet unelected candidate in a primary contest for a future election, with no properly sourced evidence that he's attained enough notability to warrant a Wikipedia article yet. Per WP:POLITICIAN, a person is not notable as a politician until they win election to a notable office — absent that, you have to be able to prove that he's notable enough for other things to pass a different notability guideline, but that hasn't been proven here. This article, rather, is quite clearly little more than a promotional brochure. As always, he'll be entitled to a Wikipedia article if he wins the election, but he is not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The description of "promotional brochure" is apt, since it appears one of the major editors of the article is House's campaign director.[51] —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thus we add conflict of interest to the pile of reasons why the article may not exist in this form. Truthfully, I suspected as much — it usually is the campaign manager who posts these premature "So-and-so is a candidate" puff pieces. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. After a Google news search, I didn't see enough coverage of House to demonstrate that he is currently a notable individual. As mentioned above, he doesn't yet meet WP:POLITICIAN, and all the coverage I see of House is in the context of a field of six gubernatorial candidates. If he wins nomination in the primary election, then I will buy into the presumption of significant coverage and recommend a new article be created. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At this time, however, I don't see the coverage to meet WP:GNG, I don't see anything to get him notability under WP:BIO for his life before running for office, and I don't think he should have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To Colorado gubernatorial election, 2014, where he is already appropriately mentioned, restore if elected. Dru of Id (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still favor deleting the article: if he becomes notable later, we'll want a restructured article over what we have now. However, I think that if the article is deleted, it should be replaced with a redirect to the election. I also wouldn't object if the history is preserved but the page is turned into a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Steve House is well known within the healthcare industry as a business consultant. Regardless his run for governor in Colorado, his expertise and reputation establish him as a go-to resource for cost-effective delivery of health care technologies. Suspect that BEARCAT is a member of an opposing campaign. House is notable as a candidate precisely because he is not a career politician. His sphere of influence is outside the political class, although he did serve as an aide to Senator Kent Lambert on the Joint Budget Committee and IS an ELECTED official within the Republican Party in his position as chairman of the Adams County, Colorado Republican Party. RETAIN ON WIKIPEDIA Okerstrom (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — Okerstrom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Firstly, I don't even live in the United States (and never have in my entire life) at all, so it's not even possible for me to be a "member of an opposing campaign". And for that matter, I quite regularly act to delete articles about unelected candidates who have not properly demonstrated their notability — even when they're associated with the political party in my own country that I do actively support, I still act to delete them on here if they're not making a properly sourced claim of notability that actually passes Wikipedia's inclusion rules.

Secondly, being the chair of a political party's local organization in a particular county is still not a claim of notability that passes WP:POLITICIAN — while local politicians (mayors, county executives, city councillors, local organizers, etc.) may be notable under certain specific circumstances that have not been met or passed here, the lowest level of elected office that automatically confers notability on everybody who holds the office is the state level (i.e. members of the legislature, cabinet officers, etc.)

Thirdly, the fact of being a business consultant does not automatically confer Wikipedia-includable notability on a person either — your claim that he's a "go-to resource for cost-effective delivery of health care technologies" still does not constitute a valid claim of notability unless you can properly source that he's widely recognized as such in independent sources rather than just asserting it.

Wikipedia does not have an ideological bias in favour of one political party or against another, or a preference for one candidate over another in a pending primary or nomination race — what we do have is notability rules dictating that a politician, regardless of their political affiliation, is not in most circumstances an appropriate topic for an article on here until they've actually won election to a notable position; absent that, you have to make a claim of notability for something other than just their candidacy itself, much stronger and more properly sourced than has actually been made here. If he wins the primary and becomes the actual candidate for governor in the general election, then that will probably be enough to warrant an article, since "major party candidate in a gubernatorial election" is in most cases a notable enough position in its own right — but merely being a candidate in the primary does not, in and of itself, constitute sufficient notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecy to Colorado gubernatorial election, 2014, per User:Dru of Id. This is a usual and appropriate outcome. Enos733 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RETAIN ON WIKIPEDIA: House gives talks all over the United States to professionals in the health care industry. He is a published author. Not a self-published author, but an expert in his field with a New York-based publishing house. The Adams County GOP is a major player in Colorado politics, as Adams County is a major urban jurisdiction in metropolitan Denver. While notability may be in question from the perspective of one living in another country, it is not in question among objective residents of Colorado or professionals in the American healthcare industry. Notability for this individual was questioned shortly after initial publication of the page, when the article was in early stages and contained relatively little information and source material. As authors of this article conduct more research, and present more details, the notability question gets weaker. House is quite notable in an important, non-glamorous field that receives little attention. The Steve House page meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. As for "conflict of interest," the writer in question explained in the talk section of the Steve House page that she merely posted verifiable biographical details without knowledge of the fact most Wikipedia authors work incognito. The objective, factual nature of her contributions can be verified with a simple review of the history transcript. The fact she was honest about her identity should not work against the Steve House page.CampaignWatcher (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CampaignWatcher (talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC) — CampaignWatcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is not a question of simply asserting a person's importance — it's a question of being able to demonstrate that the person has received coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject for one or more accomplishments that would satisfy one of our notability rules. The very fact that you can honestly say that's he's "notable" in a "non-glamorous field that receives little attention" is exactly the problem — the reception of attention for one or more qualifying career accomplishments is the definition of notability on here. It doesn't matter how much importance you assert that a person has — if the coverage in reliable sources is not there to properly verify that they've accomplished something that meets one or more of our inclusion rules, then the person doesn't qualify for an article no matter how important you believe them to be. You need coverage of his business career in independent sources to make him notable enough to get past our inclusion rules for people in business, not just an assertion that he's a major and important figure in a poorly-covered industry.

Publishing a book doesn't, in and of itself, automatically qualify a person for an article on here either, particularly if the best source you can add for the book is its sales profile on an online bookstore. That's a primary source which does not demonstrate notability — you need coverage of the book in independent sources to make him notable enough to get past our inclusion rules for writers, not just a "purchase the book here" link.

And for the record, considering that you have never made a single edit to Wikipedia that didn't directly pertain to Steve House (his article itself, adding his name to other articles about his competitors in the primary and commenting here), you also have at least the appearance of a conflict of interest here, as does Okerstrom for the exact same reason — you both need to be aware that Wikipedia's AFD policy specifically permits people's contributions to the discussion to be discounted or excluded from the final consensus summation if they don't have a well-established history of contributing to a diversity of topics and a well-established record of familiarity with Wikipedia's inclusion or exclusion policies. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While those who receive major party nominations as gubanatorial candidates may well be notable, in general just being one of four contenders in a primary, especially when the primary has not happened and the candidate might back out, does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: Subject is a published author and professional speaker in the health care profession, which is a central topic in American politics. Subject is elected head of major GOP organization. Unlike at least two other Republican candidates in this race, the subject of this entry has been invited to both debates and is considered a major contender by the media and Republican establishment, as documented. Given this subject's notability, deletion would be viewed as political favoritism of competing candidates and would not do service to voters who want to know more about the candidate.Saddleburr4u (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC) — Saddleburr4u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wow, yet another SPA who's never made a single edit to Wikipedia that didn't directly pertain to Steve House. Is the conflict of interest rule really that hard to comprehend?

All together now, once more with feeling: nobody's disputing that he is a published author and professional speaker in the health care profession, but what the article still lacks is reliable sources which properly demonstrate that he's a notable published author and professional speaker in the health care profession. I see you changed the source for the book, for example, but the new source still fails our reliable sourcing rules, because it's still (1) a promotional blurb, (2) on a site that has a direct personal affiliation with House's coauthor, and (3) has a "login to purchase this book here" link right at the top of the page. It's not coverage of the book in an independent source; it's an advertisement for the book in an affiliated source, which is not the kind of sourcing that passes our rules on here.

And as for "deletion would be viewed as political favoritism of competing candidates and would not do service to voters who want to know more about the candidate", guess what? We're not the media, and "doing a service to voters" is not our job. Our responsibility here is to look past the daily news and figure out what people are still going to need to know five or ten years from now, not to grant "equal time" to aspiring politicians who want to promote themselves in current elections even if their articles aren't properly sourced. If he wins the primary and becomes the actual candidate for governor in the general election, then he'll be a topic we should cover here — but our role when it comes to politics begins and ends at writing about people who've actually won election to a notable office or position, not every single candidate in a primary race. Bearcat (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The place for the candidate's agents to publicise his views on the economy, gun rights, marijuana etc is his campaign brochure, not this encyclopedia. WP:POLITICIAN is there precisely to prevent Wikipedia filling up with candidates' promotional articles like this. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 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 redirect. Ollieinc (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spark New Zealand[edit]

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

Integrate name change into existing Telecom New Zealand page. Justinhu12 (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the best thing to do. Ollieinc (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 00:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Yes, agreeing with the above, to be implemented by redirecting and merging. There's not enough separately about the name, it is not a new entity, it's just a rename, only one article is needed. --do ncr am 17:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above NealeFamily (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per the suggestion. If this name change goes ahead, we will at some stage move the article to this name. Schwede 66 04:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Telecom New Zealand. Current name is Telecom. Adabow (talk) 06:28, 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.