< 20 March	22 March >

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there is nothing encyclopaedic here so TNT applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congress in Haryana[edit]

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

Contested PROD, declined, but no reason given. Original reason was: "Political propaganda and WP:OR disguised as an article" Fiddle Faddle 23:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is definitely propaganda, but beyond that, we already have an article for the Indian National Congress, not to mention a Politics of Haryana. I see no reason why there should be an article for a specific branch of a party in a specific area. And it's not really a title that would be proper being merged anywhere. So I think deleting it is the best option. Silver seren^C 23:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - the article was wrongly titled but if the party plays a major role in the state then perhaps there is nothing wrong with covering the role of a major player in a microcosm. We could weed the propaganda out and reword. But on the other hands it needs a lot of work as it is very badly written.Masterknighted (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee Shyamsunder (talk) 07:36, 22 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 the bio article and Delete the recording articles. Spinning Spark 23:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Faith[edit]

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

Same concerns as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessi Malay In ictu oculi (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same lack of sources:[reply]

Keep bio, no comment yet on two albums and EP - I think we have a problem here with her being notable as "Angel" not "Angel Faith". ELLEgirl - Oct-Nov 2004 - Page 76 "ELLEGIRL celebrates Angel's debut album Believe in Angels... Believe in Me (and her super glam style) with an amazing FREE offer. For a limited time, get the fab Nail Lacquer Angel Pink from Nicole by OPI (created just for Angel) FREE from ..." In ictu oculi (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously a notable performer just needs to be cleaned up Masterknighted (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masterknighted, agree. Can you take a look at the two albums please? I've found a couple of blog references that some of these tracks were recorded but unreleased. But no evidence of an official or even bootleg album being out there. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She's charted, http://www.billboard.com/artist/279227/angel/chart, and two releases on a notable label. Albums and EP need to show that the charts exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As above keep bio....but delete two albums and EP the Christmas one might just be a real EP, but the two albums do I'm afraid look entirely like wishful thinking, no evidence they ever existed. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:11, 26 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 all and then redirect Jessi Malay to No Secrets (musical group).. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessi Malay[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Role Play (Jessi Malay song) seems to be no verifiable sources for the BLP or for the songs. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for lack of sources:[reply]

In addition see AfD for Angel Faith BLP, Friends Forever (No Secrets album) Twisted (Angel album) were made by the same editor.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched Billboard for the subject, the album and the single and there are no hits. The best hit is a section of the video uploaded by TMZ. Without confirmation the single, album and subject fail notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Jessi Malay to No Secrets (musical group), where her new stage name and solo career are already mentioned. Delete the other articles. Searches return press releases and their retreads, promo sites, and just the faintest few sentences here and there in reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:02, 23 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 Sky Sports F1#Programming . Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The F1 Show[edit]

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

Little more than an episode guide of a magazine show, with no assertion of notability or independent sources. A Google search shows little more than TV guide listings. Fails WP:GNG. QueenCake (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sky Sports F1#Programming Nom has it right; we don't need an episode guide for a weekly sports pre-game/pre-race series which is pretty much 'they talked about this and that, some race world gossip, and here's a description of the track'. We don't have this for the networks carrying the American NASCAR series and here the section in the SSF1 sums up the show's purpose in one simple sentence. Nate • (chatter) 02:29, 22 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 snow keep. Merger can be discussed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh666 04:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merton College (London)[edit]

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

What makes this more notable than either of their other campuses? Laun chba ller 20:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. Merton College was once notable and therefore is always notable. Thge fact that it was eventually absorbed by another institution does not change this. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Merge into article on successor institution. There is precedent for both options in our treatment of educational institutions. RomanSpa (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A merger (retaining the sourced historical content about this school) can be considered separately from the AfD but deletion would not be appropriate here, as Eastmain correctly states; notability is not temporary. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - merged notable institutions retain their notability. The question of merging the page is for post-AFD discussion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This tertiary college existed as an independent institution, probably for many years. Its merger with another college does not remove its notability. The article is a poor one, but that implies improving it, not deleting it! Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well expressed above. Merger into another entity does not make a subject non-notable. Carrite (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per all above. Merger doesn't mean it's no longer notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, per Roman, Whispering, et al. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 00:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imagix 4D[edit]

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

fails WP:Notability (software), untouched since inception 4 years ago Ysangkok (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:04, 4 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 21 March 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 March 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:35, 21 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) 00:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowwood Future Architects[edit]

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

No evidence of notability with only a self reference, has been proposed for deletion in 2009 and marked as non-notable and un-referenced since 2009 MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notabilityMasterknighted (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Highbeam turns up some coverage in the South African Saturday Star on the back of their annual "Engager Survey" but nothing substantial about the firm. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 22 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baci Lingerie[edit]

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

Contested speedy for publicity/notability/copyvio, I did a quick check of a few phrases for copyvio and haven't found them in current edition. Possibility of notability, bringing to AfD for consensus vs a speedy. Tawker (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - article does require considerable cleanup, does read as advert right now -- Tawker (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The copyvio examples listed in the speedy nom were removed by the article creator while the nom was pending. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there guidelines for notability of businesses that we could review before voting? Bali88 (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is WP:CORP. A quick check of the article's citations indicates they are mostly reprinted press releases. (The Adult Video News source is notorious for this.) Independent RS coverage is a problem here. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AVN sources are press releases. Apart from that philanthropic works and multiple awards shows notability.--Talpatra (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - this brand of lingerie seems to be carried in a decent number of stores. However, the extensive citing of AVN is not ideal. The sources do appear to be mainly press releases. If the sources can be bolstered, I'd support keeping the article. :-) Bali88 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant amount of secondary source discussion and recognition with multiple awards. — Cirt (talk) 06:16, 27 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bookbinder Soup[edit]

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

Violates WP:PROMO and WP:NOTGUIDE Anomalocaris (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the recipe section needs to be reworked. But the article looks reasonable and appears to be sourced otherwise. Certainly improvements can be made. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, seems notable, seems fine, if it were too promotional that should be addressed by editing. --do ncr am 02:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment There appears to be a great deal of overlap with the heavily tagged article Old Original Bookbinder's. Merge? Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not promotional, simply addresses what others have said about it. There aren't many sources out there. Can't be promotional because it doesn't promote anything, the most close item to promotional is the section where it addresses the Drake's target market. That agrees with many sources online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkouassi (talk • contribs) 14:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW j⚛e decker ^talk 15:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NERA Economic Consulting[edit]

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

Deleted following an expired prod. Restored on request but no attempt has been made to add evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. Just about every paragraph is puffery, which, if removed, would leave almost nothing left. It may be notable, but clearly someone with a COI wrote this as a promotional puff piece. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As for notability, it clearly is a major company in its field, and it possibly is notable , but it needs proof of this, by our usual method: references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. There are no such references: merely the ranking from a career intelligence web site, and its own wen page.

As for promotionalism , the article consists ofa paragraph of description mixed with puffery and unsupported adjectives of praise, a list of the routine services they offer, a list of offices, and a list of competitors. The first paragraph belongs nowhere unless rewritten from scratch, and the 2nd and 3rd belong only on their own website' the list of competitors is repeated in the lede & the text and really belongs as a category--the way it's used is as advertising that this firm is better than they are . Multiple efforts over time to clean up this article have failed, and the only practical course is to start over--by someone without COI. I think it's safe to assume any editor writing arrant puffery has a COI

I declined to restore it, on the basis that if I did I would just nominate it for a G11. I could do that now, but since it's been brought here, let the consensus deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a G11. This article is little more than a press release or ad, and has no business being here without a fundamental rewrite. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Also very likely a copyvio, I just can't find the source StarM 17:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is spam from start to finish. I've added just about the only thing that wasn't spam (the founding date, founding name, and founders to Oliver Wyman#Oliver Wyman Group with an independent source. Speaking of which, the latter article could use a good dose of the red pencil. Voceditenore (talk) 18:54, 22 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 delete per WP:CSD#A11. Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Catan[edit]

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

A non-notable micronation. Maybe a hoax? Lugia2453 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of Catan is an official and notable micronation, people like Kevin Baugh President of Republic of Molossia recognises Republic of Catan Principality of Sealand unofficially recognises us. We are part of online micronational groups. We are definitely not a hoax. A06jk2 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability through reference to independent media. Acroterion (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting it why don't you help us find a way of making it a more notable micronation. A06jk2 (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not Wikipedia's job to make things notable. Please read WP:NOT#OR: Personal inventions. If you or a friend invented the word frindle, a drinking game, or a new type of dance move, it is not notable enough to be an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Valenciano (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons I've explained in the reply above. Some bloke declares his bedroom to be an independent country. Great. But Wikipedia judges notability based on coverage in reliable sources. Unlike the Principality of Sealand, this one has no coverage in third party sources. A petition to recognise it has achieved the grand total of 7 backers. That tells us all we need to know about the lack of notability. Valenciano (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept what your saying but we have actual land registered with the UK Government as "Republic of Catan State" ownership and we have real people, real weather. So why if the UK GOVERNMENT can Recognise a small piece of land as 'independent' i use ' for reasons they do not fully recognise it but they accepted the ownership change? Why wont Wikipedia accept it? A06jk2 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Lets Say if no Decision is found by 19:00 on 21 March 2014 then we will say Wikipedia shall Not-Delete this article. A06jk2 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how it works. It usually takes up to 7 days, then a decision will be taken (if not the article already have been deleted.) Please do not blank this page or remove the AfD-template on the article. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so 7 days before this hopefully gets cleared up. Kind Regards and Many Apologies. A06jk2 (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United nations of catan. Qwfp (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that deletion but the Republic of Catan has been in existance and I quoute here 'since 1999' making it a micronation that has been around for more than 10 years. Although "I don't think speedy deletion as a hoax applies (since micronations are almost by definition brought into existence by someone saying "I've created a micronation")" quote from the original post you just brought. 86.162.62.218 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)— 86.162.62.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy delete A7 as a non-notable club. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A06jk2. Ruby Murray 00:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a lack of notability and there are hoax events as well. Eye snore (pc) 00:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No you are denying a smaller nation (Micronation) a place in the international community when really who are you to comment on what or who people are. You go around Trolling sites to get pleasure. Its really sad if i'm honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A06jk2 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 22 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electrosmog[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Esoteric term redefined as a POV fork of Electromagnetic radiation and health with undue weight on WP:FRINGE theories. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Closing admin, please check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/207.255.205.112 - much abuse of multiple accounts repoted, some of them here. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with merge-to being Electromagnetic radiation and health. There is no need for a second article on this purported phenomenon. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge) This is nothing more than a POV fork with a pejorative POV name. APL (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There might be enough sources to allow this to remain and be MEDRS compliant, but if so then only barely. Here are some such sources: [1] [2] Also, this has gotten some mainstream media coverage: [3] [4] Jinkinson talk to me 23:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep and Don't Merge: There's more than enough support that this is a real term in common use that is referenced in literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.205.112 (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC) reported at WP:SPI[reply]

- Nobody doubts that it's a real term, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "Electrosmog" is just a pejorative term for another concept already well covered in the encyclopedia. APL (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what exactly is the replacement term for electrosmog? the name fits like a glove in my opinion. electromagnetic radiation and health only refers to photons and radiowaves, whether ionizing or nonionizing, and does not include magnetic field smog, or electric field smog, which is part of the definition of electrosmog being man-made fields of that are carcinogenic. For example, low frequency electric and magnetic field pollutions from high voltage power lines have been named as a possible carcinogens and increase the risk of childhood leukemia. This topic would not fit under electromagnetic radiation and health. There are really 3 fields to be considered, as is validated by the widespread commercial acceptance of trifield meters for the purpose of measuring all 3 fields of electosmog: electric, magnetic, and RF. Let me quote from the literature from my trifield meter. "Hazard Thesholds: Studies have suggest the biological effects may begin to occur near 3 milligauss of AC magnetic field; 1 Kv/m electric field, and approximately 1 mW/cm^2 of microwave RF power. long term personal exposure to such environments should therefore be minimized." These levels are more common than people realize. even the government recognizes an RF power density limit of 2 mW/cm^2 for cellphone being held against the skull to avoid potential development of health problems.
  - Deletion is a vote for sockpuppets that control multiple IP addresses that prey on valid articles for the purpose of hiding information for their own political agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.205.112 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that someone is abusing this AfD process, please provide it. Otherwise, I suggest you stick to the point of the discussion. Commenting on other users rather than the article is considered disruptive. – Wdchk (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: If sources have it as a real term, but the content is unnecessarily duplicated, it would be appropriate and useful to leave behind a redirect. – Wdchk (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* keep and Don't Merge: I don't see any evidence of duplication of material. could you point out the location where its duplicated? I think its a bad idea to merge it into Electromagnetic radiation and health because they are different topics.Pattyrobinson56 (talk)— Pattyrobinson56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reported at WP:SPI

Keep and Don't merge: Electromagnetic radiation and health is already long enough. I think this makes a good subtopic for this article.Yarnlogo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC) — Yarnlogo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reported at WP:SPI[reply]

Merge - this is a POV fork, but the term is used, so it is a plausible redirect. There is not that much content in the article that could be merged, and none of the existing sources seems very relevant, except possibly for the bok edited by Savage et al, but that reference is incomplete so it is difficult to verify. --bonadea contributions talk 22:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my own !vote to delete and redirect - there really isn't enough content here for merging. --bonadea contributions talk 16:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Electromagnetic radiation and health. One article for one subject. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Don't Merger. I was just looking through the history of the article and I think this article is easily fixable. Also, searching the internet leads me to beleive that Electrosmog is the most prevailant term used to describe this issue. electromagnetic radiation and health is too long to use in a sentence when talking about this subject. I vote to keep both, they are both necessary and benifical.Carapiton (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC) — Carapiton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reported at WP:SPI[reply]

- Except that "Fixing" this article to a neutral tone would make it more or less identical to the EM and Health article. At that point, why not just have a redirect? APL (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a fork of an existing term. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Honestly there just isn't enough salvageable material here to make a 'merge' worthwhile—which seems to be the consensus among the non-sockpuppeting, non-new-single-purpose editors familiar with Wikipedia policy. (Anyone who does see any useful, reliable sources that genuinely add value should identify them and note them on Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and health rather than waiting for this AfD to close.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect (as per above) or (second best) smerge. Electrosmog is a term used only by cranks, it's very likely that as with "wind farm syndrome" the adverse effect is in fact caused by the ravings of these charlatans. For yuks, the "electrosmog doctor" who writes an ~~advertorial~~ column in "What Doctors Don't Tell You" advises using a filter to remove transients from your mains wiring, and then using an ethernet over mains system instead of WiFi. Can you see what's wrong with this picture? Guy (Help!) 17:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/207.255.205.112#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments, I unearthed a sock filing cabinet related to this article. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:10, 26 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 16:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharaf Qaisar[edit]

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

Notability concerns, someone had filed for CSD, I don't believe it's a CSD worthy delete. Tawker (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Thanks for starting this. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO (if they would be covered under that). Overall they lack significant coverage in reliable sources and the article is obviously promotional. STATic message me! 18:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 20:59, 21 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talarius gaming system[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I PRODded this page because the system is, so far as I can tell, utterly non-notable, with a google search only showing three reviews, two by one reviewer and all three of those on RPG.net (i.e. user submitted) and both reviewers being among the game's playtesters. Oh, and one review on Geek Native that very closely matches an RPG.net review. (Note: Do not confuse this tabletop RPG with the company that makes slot machines by the name Talarius). According to |the person contesting the PROD "I am the owner/creator of the Talarius Gaming System ... I actually use this page to tell more people about the gaming system." Also the article creator was a wp:SPA, and for that matter so is one of the other contributors.

For that matter finding anything at all on the system is difficult - the only game I've found that uses it is Legends of Kralis (so I've given all the notability I can find for that game; the system doesn't seem to be independently notable of the game - but the game has no page of its own to merge to right now). So I'm treating everything to do with Legends of Kralis (such that there is) as establishing notability for the system.

So far as I can tell this is pure wp:Promotion. Given the person who is contesting the Prod is "the owner/creator of the Talarius Gaming System" there's also a case under wp:A11 as I see no assertion of notability on the page. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG; what coverage there is out there is non-independent if not directly self-published. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 21 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. Despite the extensive (and I do mean extensive) discussion here, there is no consensus to delete or keep the article at this time. Merger / redirect do not have a consensus either, although specific discussions can still be held at the article talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real Time Developer Studio[edit]

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

Recently created product article that is non-notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The creator of the article created "PragmaDev RTDS" in March 2012, which is the same product. That was speedily deleted as a copyvio. This is not a copyvio and so that does not apply, however it appears that the creator may have an undisclosed association with the product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Author I am Emmanuel Gaudin the author of this article and PragmaDev founder and CEO. I am also part of several program committees such as the SDL Forum conference, the UML & AADL conference, the INCOSE IS2014. My point was to get Real Time Developer Studio in the list of UML tools because that is where it belongs. This required the entry to be linked to a product page, so I did create it.

The tool Real Time Developer Studio project won the French ministry of research national competition on innovative technologies in 2001. The tool is used by large companies such as Alcatel-Lucent, Airbus, or Renault. The tool is integrated with:

the European Space Agency TASTE framework,
the Verimag IF model checking tools,
the LAAS TINA model checking tool,
PragmaList, a common lab with French national research center CEA LIST.

That should demonstrate enough notability for the tool to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu31415 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 23 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep

rickreed (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing undisclosed as far as I can see. The author is who he claims to be be,

As CEO of PragmaDev the author has an interest in Real Time Developer Studio (RTDS), but I do not understand why that should stop him adding RTDS as an article so that it can be referenced from other pages: he is probably the best person to initiate an article on the tool. It is not clear what the rationale for deleting the article is. The tool has existed for a number of years, is commercially successful, has been referenced in a number of published papers, is quite widely used, and therefore in my opinion is notable should be included in Wikipedia.

End of suggestion from rickreed (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — Rickreed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep

--Edel Sherratt (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC) The author is founder and CEO of PragmaDev, and has an interest in PragmaDev Real Time Developer Studio (PragmaDev RTDS).[reply]

It is very useful indeed to have an article that can be referenced from pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification_and_Description_Language and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unified_Modeling_Language_tools and the author is the person best placed to initiate such a page.

The tool is cited in a number of reliable, independent publications, including

Kuhn, T.; Gotzhein, R.; Webel, C., "Model-Driven Development with SDL – Process, Tools, and Experiences" in Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Eds.Nierstrasz, Oscar; Whittle, Jon; Harel, David; Reggio, Gianna, Springer LNCS 4199, October 2006
Hassine, M.B.; Grati, K.; Ghazel, A.; Kouki, A., "Design and Implementation of AIS Link Layer Using SDL-RT," Systems Conference, 2008 2nd Annual IEEE , vol., no., pp.1,5, 7-10 April 2008
Serge Haddad; Fabrice Kordon; Laurent Pautet; Laure Petrucci, "Distributed Systems: Design and Algorithms", Wiley and Sons Inc. 2011

End of suggestion from Edel Sherratt (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Edel Sherratt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WP:SPAs have had their say as I expected that they would. None of them can support that the product is in any way notable. It certainly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. Unless someone can show that this product has 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable sources that are 3) independent of the subject, the article should be deleted. Its usefulness on Wikipedia is not a subject for debate as Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the comment A number of links with major research centers in France and in Europe have been listed above. In addition, the following publications make reference to the tool:
- SAM 2010 proceedings Springer LNCS
- SDL 2009 proceedings Springer LNCS
- Models 2006 conference Springer LNCS
- Distributed systems Wiley 2013
- CASE 2011 Simposio Argentino de Sistemas Embedidos
- ENSEEIHT school of engineering handout on embedded systems
- Telecom SudParis school of engineering handout on SDL

This looks like significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Manu31415 (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They were only mentions of the product so not "significant coverage". What we have is proof that it exists but not that it's notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" would an article about the product that is detailed. That would ideally be something other than a how-to discussion and be more along the lines of describing its features or the benefits of its use or even a case study of how it was used to solve a problem. Academic papers that reference it in a single sentence or list it as a tool used or the like are clearly not what constitutes significant coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the comment Real Time Developer Studio is based on SDL and UML standard languages so the basic features of editing the models are closely related to the languages and are not discussed directly. The two handouts I refer to are used to teach modeling, and practical exercises are done with Real Time Developer Studio tool. Since the class can not be about a tool but a technology RTDS is only quoted. There are 50 universities using RTDS in class but these are the only two handouts available on line. Again, because RTDS is based on standard languages, research papers only discuss advanced topics such as simulation and test generation (CASE 2011), or code generation (SDL 2009 and SAM 2010). It is not a single sentence in these cases.

What can I say ? Having a tool used in 50 universities, discussed or quoted as a reference in international specialized conferences, integrated with several national research lab technologies and within an ESA framework would not be significant coverage ?! And therefore should not be listed in the List of UML tools ?! I did not know half of the tools in that list and I do not understand why tools like Software Ideas Modeler or StarUML have more significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject than RTDS. Manu31415 (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that you have nothing to help it meet WP:GNG or any other relevant notability criteria. If you'd like to nominate other articles for the same reason, that would help, but your argument falls in-line with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that I did make my point, with the support of Rick Reed who is ITU-T rapporteur for SDL and Edel Sherratt who is a researcher in computer science. I think your questions are legitimate but we replied to them. It looks like you actually already made up your mind in the first place and nothing we can say will make any difference.Manu31415 (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

--LaurentDoldi (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Pragmadev RTDS is the only independent tool commercially available, supporting the widely used ITU-T languages SDL and MSC. Pragmadev is a small French company (about 20 people I suppose), INDEPEDENT and existing since 2001. The two main other companies making commercial SDL tools (Verilog and Telelogic) have been acquired by Rational, now part of IBM.[reply]
I believed that the spirit of Wikipedia was to support small companies or indivuals rather than large capitalist groups governed by quick term profits only. But when I read the comments in favour of deletion, it seems that it is no longer the case.
Remenber that EVERY Airbus aircraft in service in 2014 executes around 300.000 lines of C code generated automatically from SDL (and ASN.1) models developed with RTDS, either in its ATSU computers (Air Traffic Services Unit) on A320, A330 and A340 families, ot in ATC applications running on modular avionics on A380, A400M and A350.
Also if billions of users are using their mobile phones, it is partly thanks to SDL, which has been used in ETSI (European Standards Telecommunications Institute) to help developing the GSM and 3G etc. specifications, then used by companies such as Motorola, Alcatel, Mitsubishi etc. to develop mobile phones and network infrastructures.
I have written 3 books on SDL, two published by myself, and one published by Wiley (http://www.wileyeurope.com/remtitle.cgi?isbn=0470852860). I have been working 32 years as a software engineer for the aircraft and telecom industry, using SDL and other languages, so you can trust me. See my LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/laurent-doldi/6/470/b3 — LaurentDoldi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT delete The technical domain addressed by this tool is very specialized. There can only be relevant coverage in academic publications, and the best ones in this domain are the ones listed above. Wikipedia would definitely gain from including such specialized technologies in its pages. Manu31415 (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is highly specialized software, which deserves an article. It clearly passes WP:GNG. scope_creep talk 17:44 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see where it passes GNG. Do you have that information handy? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this topic is already listed in the encyclopedia, so "delete" !votes are not policy based. On the other hand, "keep" is not a policy-based argument given our WP:V policy. Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From where does the idea arise, Unscintillating, that delete !votes are not policy based, when the topic is listed? Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I wasn't going to !vote until I saw this ~~[5]~~[6]. See WP:BITE. As per my previous comment, I am aware that this is not a policy-based keep argument. However, the statements about the long term notability of this topic made in this discussion and shown in the article are sufficient given the circumstances, and also based on information in the article Specification and Description Language. I am willing to change my !vote to one that is policy based, including Incubate, if discussion evolves. Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has not evolved, and I have reviewed the arguments. I'm striking out the !vote here and added a new !vote below. Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment long-term what? It has never been notable. The fact that no one has nominated it for deletion before is simply dumb luck. There is no discussion at Specification and Description Language only an entry, which will be removed when this article is correctly deleted. Arguments for inclusion must be policy-based. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An AfD nomination is not WP:BITEy. Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:24, 21 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, Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the underlying question here is about what notable means when it comes to very specialized technologies. There has been comments from experts in this specialized community to state the tool was actually notable in the domain. The reply from non specialized people is that it is not notable but I do not understand how they can tell. Manu31415 (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the question here, that's a question for talk page at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Some of the papers listed above describe how they have been using Real Time Developer Studio in their work. It is not trivial or incidental. If that can help please have a look at this CS web page which is unfortunately only available in French. CS is listed on Euronext stock exchange. It basically says that RTDS has been used by CS since 2004 to design the Air Traffic Control for Airbus. That does not look trivial or incidental to me. Manu31415 (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Walter when he comments above that none of the listed papers offer significant coverage. As for the link given to the CS web page it only mentions RTDS parenthetically, "(en l'occurrence Pragmadev pour son outil RTDS)", and I'd call that incidental and trivial. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 22:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with industrial tools is that companies rarely publicize their usage. It is the opposite with academic tools, there are a lot of publications but that does not mean there are a lot of active users. Most of our success stories are only available on paper format so when a company web site says "in that case PragmaDev for its tool RTDS" it is very meaningful. Anyway in that case the whole CS story has actually been presented at a conference and you can find the whole paper here. Manu31415 (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia WP:GNG concept, coverage is either trivial or significant. Trivial coverage is something like the entry in a phone book. The parenthetical mention being discussed is giving direct attention to the topic, so it is not trivial, even if it is short. In the real world, or en:notability, if I am reading this correctly, the mention is quite significant, because people's lives under air traffic control are being affected. This parenthetical text goes directly to the fact that this company has WP:LASTING effects on the world-at-large. Whether or not this topic meets WP:GNG is another question. My experience has been that wp:notable companies are listed at Bloomberg's investing.businessweek.com. Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - It appears possible that several of the !votes earlier in the discussion may be from a sockpuppet, in which the same user may be using using different signatures. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but the product is certainly worth an article. Its probably 3-4th generation modelling tool from an established software company, creating and implementing a real-time modelling language with code generation. scope_creep talk 23:52 25 March 2014 (UTC)
What makes you think it is the same user with different signatures ? Who are you thinking of ? Manu31415 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to Specification and Description Language I find the comments of the author of the three books on SDL to be helpful. The current article lacks the needed inline citations required by WP:V, so redirect for now. Merge using inline citation is left as an exercise for interested parties, which we have expertise on SDL here. Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the target article some more, I suggest the merge consider the creation of List of SDL tools. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Specification and Design Language redirects to Specification and Description Language. Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Few remarks on the previous comment:

The current article has not gone further because the article was considered for deletion. It will be improved if it is not deleted.
I do not understand why merging a technology article and a tool article would help.
Creating a List of SDL tools requires each listed tools to have an entry in Wikipedia. This is why I created this article in the first place, to be listed in the List of UML tools. Because our tool supports both technologies as well as TTCN-3.
The motivation of Walter Görlitz to delete the article is that the tool is not notable enough to have its own entry. In that case it will be excluded of any 'List of XXX tools'. I consider the tool has significant coverage and deserves its own entry. Notability is the core of this discussion. The comments should help to reach a consensus on that point. Manu31415 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do not Merge. What is the point of merging this article with the Specification and Description Language article. There is simply no benefit having them both together, and there is likely other tool chains which use this specification, in the future with attendant articles. Are they all going to be merged? It is simply a question of notability. These strange wee software product(s) which never existed except perhaps in paper form in as little as 10-20 years ago, deserve an article. WP deserves it. If we are to simply rely on those software companies which have a big enough budget and nous to make their products popular and well known, then it's going to be a pretty barren landscape in WP. It is well worth an article. scope_creep talk 18:04 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Quote from a notability guideline. WP:LISTN AKA WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists states,

“

Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

”

Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from a manual-of-style guideline.WP:CSC AKA WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria states,

“

Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.

”

Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem at List of UML tools is not that the topic may or may not be non-notable. The quotes above clarify that such is not an issue, or at least shouldn't be, at that list.
Comment The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is WP:V verifiability. The problem at List of UML tools is that the RTDS entries have no inline citations with which readers can verify the material. IMO, editors with a WP:COI need to hold themselves to a higher standard, and support the concern of the community that such editors may knowingly or unknowingly be promoting their products in lieu of building an encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? The threshold for inclusion of sources is WP:V. The threshold of inclusion of articles is WP:N. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is my experience that Wikipedia has a systemic bias against European software developers. Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is my experience that Wikipedia has a systematic bias in favour of notable subjects and nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:V has said since I think 2005, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability..." This means inclusion of material/information. Another important concept from WP:V is WP:BURDEN, "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material." Unscintillating (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. You're just plain wrong. Verifiability does not have anything to do with whether an article should or should not be included on Wikipedia. What you're confusing is the following sentence: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" (emphasis mine). So V refers to references only, not articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit comments are becoming increasingly agitated, moving from "wrong" to now "dead wrong". This concept has now come out in the prose, too. Yet if I say "material/information", and you complain that I said "articles", this is your problem, not mine. I agree that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, in fact, if you look at the essay WP:Inaccuracy, of which I am the main author, it says, "Ultimately, with allowing for due weight considerations in how the material is presented, and notwithstanding copyright violations, the only reason to exclude verifiable material from the encyclopedia is because it is insignificant." Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 30 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 Polyamory. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compersion[edit]

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

There seems to be a number of issues with this page that I believe could best be fixed by deleting page and merging its contents with Polyamory or something similar. First of all, it's important to point out that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide - see WP:NAD. The page subject seems to be a jargon term that is used exclusively within the polyamory community. Of the eight citations listed on this page, two of them come from clearly unreliable blog sites, another one is a broken link, three come from books that appear to be self-published and aren't accessible on the internet, and two more make no reference to the term. Wikipedia policy, as per WP:NEO is not to allow neologisms. That means "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." After my own searching, I can't find significant secondary neutral sources referring to the term - it seems to be exclusively used within a particular community, and thus may not be notable for its own page. I also quote from WP:WORDS: "Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources." The word doesn't appear in general dictionaries, and it's being used exclusively within a certain community. I think instead of deleting the term it could be merged into the Polyamory article. I tagged the article for merging as well and posted this on the talk page of article previously, where two editors supported a merger. mikeman67 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an outcome besides deletion here—even a soft redirect to Wiktionary, which I don't usually like. This article was linked from The Atlantic, and I don't like the idea of a bunch of people (like me) getting sent to a nonexistent page. --BDD (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Very interesting argument. I think you'd agree that a Wiki page getting linked in a publication doesn't guarantee notability, and instead may contribute to one of those "notability loops" (I don't know the proper term) where the very fact a phrase is included in Wikipedia causes it to be referred to in third party sources. I think there's a real danger here in Wikipedia essentially inventing/introducing a term that isn't reliable or generally notable, but having it catch on because certain people and organizations simply trust the existence of a Wikipedia page as a barometer of its notability. That seems to me to be quite contrary to Wikipedia goals. At the same time, I totally agree that it would be really inconvenient to be sent to a non-existent page, and fully would support a redirect or disambiguation or something to that effect. But I remain unconvinced it is anything beyond a neologism right now. mikeman67 (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Looking at the reasons to keep an article, I can find no solid justification to keep this in the long term. I think deletion is a bit premature, however, and that the article should stand at least until a merge of information has demonstrably happened. At that point, it can be turned into a redirect. In regards to whether or not it constitutes jargon or slang, my initial reaction was that, yes, it's only used in the polyamory community, even if we use it quite regularly and most of us don't even give the word a second thought. On reflection, though, I think it goes a bit beyond a neologism at this point, much like the word "prepend" does in the programming community. It's not a fad, it's a word that just happens to have a limited usage base. Also, with a bit of digging, I've now found a couple of professional uses of the term, albeit in regards to polyamorous relationships: [7], [8], and [9] (you'll have to jump back to the first instance on those last two...not sure what to specify in the URLs to get the links to do that). I'll leave it to others to decide if those satisfy WP:NEO or not. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I disagree that there is any danger of Wikipedia ‘introducing’ a term that can be traced to multiple sources, even if their reliability is in question, unless they can all be traced back here in the first place.( There are other reasons I think it should stay, but I suspect they have more to do with personal opinion than Wikipedia goals.) I do wonder, since the lede says it’s not exclusively a poly term, whether other contexts can be sourced. If so, then a merge into polyamory could be inappropriate. Is there another term for empathetic joy? The notion of being “happy for you”? That might be a better target. --WikidSmaht (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another term for empathetic joy is "mudita". I agree that an article like mudita would be a good target to merge the information to, though I'd say "compersion" deserves some material on the polyamory article as well. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lead does claim that, but I was unable to find any source, reliable or not, that used the term outside of the context of polyamory. It seems to be used exclusively within polyamory communities (and online on blogs or personal web pages). I agree if such a source could be found it may help demonstrate some notability. mikeman67 (talk) 04:15, 11 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, Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The term might be a neologism, which would make the article fail the general notability guideline, but I certainly don't see a problem with including information about it on other related articles; there are sources out there that talk about it. I think merging some of the material to polyamory would be appropriate, and some the content should perhaps appear in the mudita article, since compersion and mudita seem to encompass nearly identical concepts. Note that on the article discussing schadenfreude (the opposite of mudita), there is a section titled "Neologisms and variants". Perhaps the mudita article could have a similar section where it discusses compersion. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I'm not opposed to a merge to polyamory, I'm not sure a merger to mudita makes sense. While they may be similar concepts, I'm not aware of any WP:RS that discusses them together, so it may be WP:OR for us to do that. mikeman67 (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fair enough. For what it's worth, I did a quick google search for both of the terms together, but most of what came up were personal blogs. So there may be some RS out there discussing the two terms together, but none that jump out. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compersion is not unique to Polyamory or even non-monogamy. I see the term commonly used, and may be less of a neologism than people believe. I found references from at least as far back as 1981 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01257945 The occurences in literature and scholarly references have been much more frequent in the past ten years. 75.72.39.145 (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you cite some sources for that? The only link you provided is about polyamory (the abstract makes no mention of "compersion"). mikeman67 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reply: The cite given is actually about polyfidelity from a journal in 1981. "The "starling" relationship elicits what they call "'compersion" rather than jealousy." from that source. Ananapol 1997 also is a scholarly citation. Anapol, Deborah M. Polyamory the new love without limits: Secrets of sustainable intimate relationships. Intinet Resource Center, 1997. Journal of Bisexuality Volume 4, Issue 3-4, 2004 Journal of Bisexualty, Plural Loves: Bi and Poly Utopias for a New Millennium. it is referenced as well. Numerous references 2004 and following, and that is ten years ago. "Some polyamorous people experience compersion, which means feeling joy that one's partner is sharing" Weitzman, Geri. "Therapy with clients who are bisexual and polyamorous." Journal of Bisexuality 6.1-2 (2006): 137-164. "Wolfe (2003) studied jealousy and compersion in the polyamorous community." Cook, Elaine S. Commitment in polyamorous relationships. Diss. Regis University, 2005. Keener, Matt C. A phenomenology of polyamorous persons. Diss. The University of Utah, 2004. "Compersion is the ability to transform jealousy into the vicarious enjoyment of a lover's pleasure leading to joy" McCoy, Megan Ann, et al. "Who's in our clients’ bed? A case illustration of sex therapy with a polyamorous couple." Journal of sex & marital therapy ahead-of-print (2013). It has been awhile since I have participated, but it seems to me it is not uncommon for someone who is unfamiliar with a term to call it a neologism. In this case, It think, not appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.39.145 (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! KEEP! Well as a practicing Compersionist with a growing number of followers emerging from the massive swingers scene of Melbourne, I think there is much said above about reference and history, however I think you need to accept that this is a new term with a new history which is still being written. We have been running workshops on Compersion for more than 5 years, and have recently made the move to commence a website compersion.com.au as well as running a Facebook group for Compersion: [10]

What you will find is that Compersionists are largely NOT part of the Polyamory subculture but are most often existing partners looking for a more appropriate way of strengthening their partnerships, allowing personal freedom in the context of a caring, supportive and trusting relationship (this where the anti-jealousy conversation comes from - but it is not a claim to be the "opposite" of jealous! This is exactly the time to fix this messy wiki Compersion reference. It has moved on from the Kerista folk - they just coined the term. We are now actively using this term and living in a specific way which can be taught. Compersion forms part of the sexual sub-culture paradigm shift underway and can be linked to Michel Foucault's "postsexual" (Postsexualism_(Michel_Foucault)) concept.

Please also reference Utilitarianism and Hedonism. From the Utilitarianism page - "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." According to Bentham and Mill, utilitarianism is hedonistic only when the result of an action has no decidedly negative impact on others." Compersionists are in part hedonistic utilitarians who believe that our pleasure is derived from supporting the freedom of our partner to experience pleasure in whatever form it takes (within guidelines established and evolved by he individual partners) and loving our friends to the extent that may sometimes but not always include physical intimacy, without reprisal or judgment.

120.148.68.127 (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey there. You may not be familiar with the requirements of WP:N. Take a look there to see some general rules on how Wikipedia's notability requirements work. Also you probably should take a look at WP:COI - it sounds like you have a conflict of interest over this article. mikeman67 (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry Hey There - I am not attempting to be some literary genius - most users of Wikipedia are not.. I simply want to ensure that key terms in use, that the general population may look up on Wikipedia are appropriately defined and linked to other themes.

120.148.68.127 (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP KEEP , Compersion is a way in which couples and individuals live , experience and express relations and relationships with others in a non judgemental way. Its not limited to just physical intimacy in which most swingers, poly groups focus more on, but can be expressed with loving friendships, freedom in relating and forming relationships, emotional connections, mental connections, spiritual connections , friendship, these are all expressed in a compersionsist experience in relating and as approach to life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.68.127 (talk) 10:14, 24 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. Article has been greatly improved and while not perfect now clearly satisifies the notability guideline, and there is consensus on this. Andrewa (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tablewaiters[edit]

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

This page came up as a random article. Having tidied up and sorted out some of the references and external links, I am not sure that this band has the required level of notability for the article to remain. The band released one single and recorded one album which was not released (nor, indeed, mixed). Only a vague claim to fame seems to be having appeared with other better known acts. It would appear that this band may have had some local following, but there is no indication of significant sales, chart entries or anything else to suggest notability. Emeraude (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find much besides passing mentions, and no charting.Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
McFarlane (1999) has no entry on Tablewaiters. The entry on The Birthday Party makes no mention of being supported by Tablewaiters. The use of this reference is deceptive at best. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not the only source that does not support what is claimed. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McFarlane briefly mentions Table Waiters in his article on 'Roddy Radalj'. However it does not support claims of touring/support slot list.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Borderline at best~~ - it pains me slightly to note there's very little here. The references are indeed not good. Nor can I claim even to have heard of them before this. The creator, User:MrMoog, is clearly a fan, has flyers, etc; may have e.g. contemporary press coverage. (I see they haven't been pinged, they should be.) I fear Wikipedia may not be the place for this (though I'm still willing to be convinced otherwise) - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Edit: Wait on original author - he's dredging the clippings collection now - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my opinion to keep - great work MrMoog, Dan and Shaidar! - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Issues with sourcing, band has not charted or attracted alternative notability. It can be difficult with bands from a while back as it's not possible to search past newspapers for that period, but the issues Duffbeerforme identifies raise concerns. Orderinchaos 16:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have addressed almost every issue relating to the references (so there is no deception as alluded to by Duffbeerforme) with the exception of the McFarlane entry for the Birthday Party, as I haven't been able to access the source to check. As indicated by Orderinchaosand David Gerard at this stage it is hard to check past newspapers online to ascertain any contemporary press coverage. Based however on the information I have been able to locate it appears that there may be a case for establishing the band's notability.Dan arndt (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a partial scrape of the copy of McFarlane that was on whammo.com.au - the Tablewaiters are not mentioned in the Birthday Party entry, and are not in fact mentioned anywhere in the files I have - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Did you check alternate spellings? See above for Table Waiters at 'Roddy Radalj' entry.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  No I didn't, well spotted! - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* I have uploaded a sample worksheet which clears up the reference to the The Birthday Party support. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Birthday_Party_Tablewaiters_Nucleus_Worksheet_1983.jpg. As the band toured nationally and were covered in the national music press, there are other clippings reviews etc which I can also upload if this helps the case. As part of a stable of bands linked to Lobby Loyde such as Sardine_v Machinations Sunnyboys I should have thought that this would have been be a worthy addition to that information of that period in Australian Music.MrMoog (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Comment~~ Keep This would definitely help: support slots with other notable bands will add weight to Tablewaiters claims per WP:BAND. As for clippings: there was an article in Juke, of 17 April 1982, but I can't find a page reference. It would also help if MrMoog declared their association with the group: former member, management or ardent fan? If the various claims can be reliably substantiated I'm looking to Keep this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks yes, here are a small sample of more worksheets; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worksheet_Summerfest_melbourne_tablewaiters_supporting_Men_at_Work_and_Mental_as_Anything.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worksheet_1983_Split_Enz_tour_tablewaiters.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worksheet_b_1983_Split_Enz_tour_tablewaiters.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worksheet_Capitol_Theatre_Tablewaiters_supporting_Psychedelic_Furs.jpg, in order support spots for Men at Work with Mental as Anything at Summerfest 1983 in Melbourne. Also part of a tour they did with Split Enz and finally a spot they did with the visiting British Band The Psychedelic Furs. As a fan and a close associate of the members involved I have kept boxes of ephemera from that period, and have also kept some newspaper clippings from that period of varying quality. (It was thirty years ago).MrMoog (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - To show they're noteworthy, the newspaper coverage would be useful. You don't have to upload it for proof (and it'd clearly be someone else's copyright), but if you cite it and quote it accurately that'll be quite sufficient :-) If they got piles of press coverage, that helps a lot - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, have added some references to the actual article - clippings that I can identify because of their clarity and in one case the actual magazine which is here. A lot of the other newspaper clippings are poorly noted or non existent dating and sourcing. I can upload these as someone maybe able to identify the source via the writer. Hope this helps.MrMoog (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems to be "notability by association" for a band that released one single and never completed an album. Emeraude (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're still a bit borderline, but this is way better than it was - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gye Bennetts is independently notable and could have his own article as a member of two other notable bands, Roddy Radalj and The Surfin' Caesars (1989), and Hitmen D.T.K. (1989–90) (see Holmgren ref in article). Tablewaiters qualifies at WP:BAND criteria #1, #4, and #6. Only one criterion is required for notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have added some links found for the Tablewaiter drummers Hywrka and Bennetts, both previously came from a band called The Agents which was James Griffin's bandMrMoog (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Both in the Agents? That caught my eye! - David Gerard (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just tarted up James Griffin (songwriter) a bit from McFarlane, by the way - moar needed - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 6 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, Black Kite (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - as per WP:BAND items #1, #4 & #6 as mentioned above. Kathodonnell (talk) 15:33, 22 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Newport[edit]

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

Basically promotional article for a series of books. There are a great number of references, demonstrating the success not of the method,but of the PR effort that has gone into it. There is no reason why we should join in. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm biased, since I'm the author of the page (however, I don't have any direct connection with Cal Newport, and have never interacted with him one-on-one). But it seems to me that the references are sufficiently numerous and diverse that notability is established. The value judgment question of whether this is because of a "PR effort" or the "method" doesn't seem relevant to whether the page is suitable to stay (for instance, the existence of pages on scientology or homeopathy isn't dependent on the factual claims of the belief systems being true, but rather on their notablity).Vipul (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well researched article on a public figure that clearly meets the notability criteria. DGG, if you have evidence that this is a promotional article, please supply it. I remind you that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Sir Paul (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. A GS h-index of around 20 is barely adequate for WP:Prof#C1 in this very highly cited field. Assistant professors are usually not notable. Too early. A possibility is WP:Author but I don't think there are sufficient in-depth independent sources to pass this. The BLP is disadvantaged by much puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment'Specific indications of promotionalism :

stretching for refs ::the arguments that he advocates in his books, but not his book itself, have been mentioned in the WSJ. Many of the things each of us advocates have generally also been advocated by RSs, and it makes none us notable.
unreliable sorces from lifehacker, misc web locations, Reviews by local college papers.
purely promotional "picks' from unreliable non experts.

The appearance of a large number of low quality references in no more convincing than than a smaller number, but promotional editors usually add all they can find. DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 8 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 8 March 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 March 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Massively short of WP:ACAD and cannot find evidence for WP:PROF or WP:GNG either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orser67 (talk • contribs)
Weak keep. The article is so badly puffed out with primary sources, blogs and similarly unreliable sources, and sources that are reliable but not about the subject or not in-depth enough, that it is hard to discern any notability. Of the 34 sources in the current version of the article, reference [3] is an in-depth profile in a local student newspaper, references [24] and [25] are in reliable sources and list the book as one of the top ten of the year. References [28], [29], and [34] are all in the same (reliable) source (Forbes), but one of them really is an in-depth book review. Reference [31] is a Wall Street Journal story that also includes in-depth coverage of Newport's book. I think this level of sourcing is adequate for WP:GNG, but all the other sources should be trimmed, and the article itself trimmed to what its reliable sources can support. As it is, I agree with the deleters that this is far too promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I have carried out the trimming of promotional material and bad sources that I think was needed for this article. As an academic computer scientist he also has some highly cited papers (four with over 100 citations each on Google scholar) but some of them appear to be work with other authors that he participated in as an undergraduate, so whether it should count for WP:PROF#C1 is unclear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Google scholar search for "author:calvin-newport". —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 21 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatem Saber[edit]

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

No Notability , unreliable sources ( references are interviews with him), his rank is Colonel and not Held the top-level military command position. the arabic wikipedia article also put for deletion --Ibrahim.ID »» 09:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the references are there, it just needs tidying up. I lived in Egypt for 15 years and everyone knows this guy. Best not to take a pro-US view on these things. --Sammen Salmonord (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, How is there is no notability for a a military officers who held the command position of the top military units in Egypt including the Unit 777? I think he is famous enough. Amr Tarek^{Say Hello!}, 17:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 21 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restroom Association[edit]

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

I think with a little bit of work, this page could be an interesting addition to Wikipedia; however, as is, there are no reliable sources, including, importantly, no verification that Restroom Association actually exists. After reading this, I'm not clear on the scope or purpose of the organization either. "LOO" looks like it's possibly an acronym? Additionally, existing notes links don't help; the first is broken. Morphovariant (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Related to the World Toilet Organization, also founded by Jack Sim in Singapore. Local news coverage definitely exists. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
International coverage exists too. --Hildanknight (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not an expert on the topic of toilets in SE Asia, but is there any reason this can't be merged into Jack Sim who seems to spend a lot of his time starting up assorted toilet-related bodies? It doesn't seem very notable.--Colapeninsula (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'ehh: There's so little here it could be merged to Jack Sim. This org is a far cry from the coverage Committee to End Pay Toilets in America got.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 21 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. Despite the walls of text below, only two users participated in this discussion. No consensus was reached. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Kolyada[edit]

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

The guy's notability is suspect. The author keeps adding his name to the list of Russian avant-garde painters, although the Russian avant-garde flourished before 1930. Such works from the 1980s are by no means avant-garde; they are standard Impressionist imitations quite typical for the late Socialist Realism. Ghirla^-трёп- 20:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi Ghirlando. Firstly, apologies for the multiple attempts at trying to add his name to the list of Russian avant-garde painters – that is because I am a complete Wiki novice (first ever article written) and still learning the proper guidelines for entries etc. –being unsure whether the changes had saved and thus trying to do it multiple times before I learnt how to read the edit history of an article and understood the listing had actually been removed.

Kolyada actually did start his artistic career before the 1930s during his time as a student at the Vhutemas-Vhutein. So far, only one example image of his avant garde works has been uploaded to wiki (Self Portrait with a Cap – owned by the Tretyakov Gallery), but there are at least seven other examples of his artwork from this period, including some found freely on the internet (e.g. Portrait of a Woman, 1935), which show the hallmarks of avant garde works and are markedly different to his later works. As noted in the Wiki article itself, his artistic career commenced during the avant garde period and he was a member of the OST (Society of Easel Painters), if only for two years prior to its disbandment by the authorities in accordance with the 1932 decree Restructuring Literary and Artistic Organisations. It is also notable that a number of his early avant garde works were destroyed in a fire in suspicious circumstances.

In 2002, two of his works (“Landscape in Yellow Tones”, 1930 and “Portrait of a Woman”, 1935 – items 47 and 48 at Chapter 16) were included in the publication “Russian Post Avant Garde, 1920 – 1940.” (Original text in Cyrillic). Images of both the publication cover and the comments on his works at Chapter 16 can be provided.

If the consensus is that he still does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in this artistic period, that is fine and no further attempts will be made to add him to the list of Russian avant garde painters. Part of what makes him unique as an artist is that he spanned different artistic periods in Russian history.

However, non-inclusion in the list of Russian avant-garde painters does not justify the overall deletion of the entry for Sergei Kolyada. The wiki guidelines for notability for a creative professional include a requirement that (4) the person’s work (or works):

(b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition

The full list of Kolyada’s exhibitions – both group exhibitions and solo exhibitions commencing in the 1940s right through to his inclusion in exhibitions at least a decade after his death are listed in the Wiki article. Links to relevant exhibition catalogues are also included, such as his solo “My Moscow Exhibition” in Moscow, 1985. The fact that he has exhibited in four continents (Russia, France, Australia, United States), often with accompanying local press also goes to demonstrate the significance of his work. See for instance the listed references in the Wiki article.

(d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums

As noted in the Wiki article, The State Tretyakov Gallery, The Moscow Historical Museum and the Lounatcharsky Museum hold a dozen of the artist’s works in their permanent collections.

Further, the Wiki general notability guideline states “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.” There are references included in the reference list which are independent secondary sources and all meet this criteria – such as the well known reference book by Matthew Bown. Still to be added to the wiki article are comments on Kolyada’s major work – his series “Old Moscow” by art critic Valentina Azarkovich who asserted this series had unique archival value as well as artistic merit. Similar published comments were made by art commentator (and artist himself) Vladimir Kostin (1985). This series can be considered Sergei Kolyada’s unique contribution because the pieces were all painstakingly historically researched – each piece included the artist’s archival research about the history of the building from Old Moscow such as its architectural history, its previous inhabitants, notable features etc.

Happy to take on any further feedback to improve the article in any way – definitely still learning how to edit on Wiki and would be very discouraged to have the article completely deleted. Kind regards, Allthesevens Allthesevens (talk) 00:34, 4 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for re-listing. Looking forward to some more discussion and a fair outcome.Allthesevens (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As there has been no further contribution to the discussion; thought it would be useful to add some further points for consideration in response to the original concerns raised:

In summary, Kolyada’s notability is not suspect – in fact it has been well established in the previous post in accordance with WP:N and WP:Creative. The issue of inclusion in the Avant-garde period is a secondary issue and should be considered as such.

Such works as stated by Ghirla(but with comments on only one painting) were never shown or intended to be included as Avant-garde paintings. To assess such works as standard impressionist painting, is a brief judgement badly argued if argued at all with only one painting involved. If some of Kolyada’s paintings are similar - in some ways- to impressionist paintings (post impressionism), it is simply because the treatment of the subject required the use of that particular style, most of the artist’s works cannot be confused with impressionism, some of his works are expressionist in style, others are using symbolism and a strong use of colour is preponderant. One cannot judge the lifelong works of a “true” artist whose artistic career spanned three distinct artistic periods with a brief comment on only one painting.

The single “work” referred to is clearly not Avant-garde (and was never claimed to be); but examples of Kolyada’s works which do meet the criteria for Avant-garde / Post Avant-garde are freely available on the internet eg image , have been included in publications for this period, included in exhibitions for this period and are held in the permanent collections of notable galleries (State Tretiakov Gallery in Russia and the Museum or Russian Art in the USA).

As for Ghirla's statement: although the Russian avant-garde flourished before 1930, it is an inexact, approximate statement. In fact, "Russian avant-garde is a common term denoting a most remarkable art phenomenon that flourished in Russia from 1890 to 1930, though some of its early manifestations date back to the 1850s, whereas the latest ones refer to the 1960s. The phenomenon of Russian avant-garde does not correspond to any definite artistic program or style. This term was assigned to radical innovative movements that started taking shape in the prewar years of 1907–1914, came to the foreground in the revolutionary period and matured during the first post-revolutionary decade." (Source: http://www.russianavantgarde.nl/Russian_Avantgarde_Art/Russian-Avantgarde.html

Today, the most famous “Avant-garde” artists are those who chose to be exiled (Kandinsky, Chagall, Goncharova, Malevich). Artists who chose to remain in the Soviet Union and compromise to various degrees with the authorities have been forgotten or neglected but for a few. (See for instance comments by Charley Parker )

During that period (from 1929 to 1940), Kolyada’s style was a simplification of shapes and forms to go to the essential of his expression through the use of large patches of colors on a graphic frame. It was an original and unique style that deserves recognition and fits within the broadly accepted criteria for the Avant-garde / Post Avant-garde style. Only 15 of Kolyada’s paintings created between 1929 and 1940 still exist or are well identified today. As mentioned in the article, a great number of Kolyada’s early paintings were destroyed in a fire in 1945.

In April 1991, 3 of Kolyada’s paintings of that period were included in an exhibition at the “New Tretiakov Gallery” “Painters of the 20’s and 30’s”. Two of his works have also been included in the book “Post avant-garde : 1920 – 1940“ mentioned in the article. Kolyada’s last known work of that period “Daisies” (1940) was acquired by the State Tretiakov gallery and is held in their permanent collection. A further three paintings from this period are held in the State Tretiakov Gallery and three have been exhibited in the Museum of Russian Art in the USA.

Regardless of any debate over his eligibility for inclusion in the list of Russian Avant-garde painters; Kolyada’s overall notability as an artist (as argued in previous post in accordance with WP:N and WP:Creative) cannot be denied and it is not appropriate to dismiss him on the basis of one user’s personal judgement of a single work of art.

Indeed, Kolyada’s major contribution in his last thirty years was his series (120 paintings) on Old Moscow. --Allthesevens (talk) 01:25, 27 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Bhasa Wikipedia[edit]

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

Non-notable version of Wikipedia; the article doesn't include any third-party sources. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact asserted in the article, that there are 70,000 articles in Nepal Bhasa language could be challenged, but has not been challenged. It's a new article, appropriately tagged for addition of sources. Note, it seems to have been moved from Newar Wikipedia; perhaps Newar is another name for the language and perhaps coverage could be under that name, too. I have to believe that this is notable, and that there is coverage in Nepal and elsewhere, in Nepal Bhasa language, in Newar, and in other languages, of this Wikipedia. Let it develop. (Similar to my !vote in AFD about Piedmontese Wikipedia). --do ncr am 23:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, it is the same illogical, non policy-based argument you have used in the other nomination. I will reply with the same question, can you prove that the article meets WP:GNG or can you not? That is the only question worth asking, the number of articles is not relevant to the deletion discussion.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piedmontese Wikipedia, which was started at the same time, was closed Keep. A participant commented that there are Wikipedia articles on other language Wikipedias, and doesn't see why this one should differ. I agree. --do ncr am 21:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it differ? Because it's not notable, and your failure to provide any supporting sources to justify your keep !vote even after two weeks further proves it. Your vote should be discounted as it has absolutely no basis in Wikipedia policy.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias as a non-notable wiki (see [11], for precedent). ansh666 04:52, 26 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palakolanu Anjaneya swami[edit]

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

Non-notable local shrine. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 2 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, Mz7 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Even if, arguendo, this site were notable, the article is such a mess of word salad as to be nonsense. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 24 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swap.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Swap.com is out of business and irrelevant in the history of the Internet, as Swap.com never took off beyond some initial start-up press. The company is now owned by someone completely different and is a children's consignment operation. Highly recommend a deletion. Ethanwa (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 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, Mz7 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the broad coverage needed to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found these sources: [12], [13], [14]. I think I could be able to find more. → Call me Hahc21 18:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Found more: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. I think those are enough to show it meets GNG. → Call me Hahc21 18:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of those are press releases and warmed-over press releases. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I just added them because they have some info that can be used. I did not do an extensive search though. → Call me Hahc21 02:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of those sources are press releases or self published in some form, but I did see some that looked relatively secondary and independent.LM2000 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage found by Hahc21 (talk · contribs). See this article titled "Swap.com's New Scan App Makes Trading Stuff Easy" from Mashable and this article from The Boston Globe titled "After spending more than $11 million, Boston-based Swap.com acquired by Finnish startup for undisclosed amount" for two examples of substantial coverage. See also this article from the Boston Herald titled "Barter Web site aims to be ‘eBay of swap’". The online article is only three short paragraphs, but it is likely longer with the rest of the article hidden behind a paywall. (The page says "The article you requested has been archived" at the bottom.) This is sufficient coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:05, 22 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada Wikipedia[edit]

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

Non-notable version of Wikipedia; the article doesn't include any third-party sources. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Is notable please check there are 38 million speakers and most of the newspapers and articles are not available online (english translated)

there was been even a ten years celebration in local newspaper of kannada wiki

here

proofs of third party sources

http://vijaykarnataka.indiatimes.com/articleshow/18968557.cms?prtpage=1

http://vijaykarnataka.indiatimes.com/articleshow/20396555.cms

below the news papers is asking people to refer to kannada wikipedia http://vijaykarnataka.indiatimes.com/articleshow/16542535.cms?prtpage=1

Other info Shrikanthv (talk) 08:47, 6 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, Mz7 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep – one more here and lots of other on the big net (and in the local newspapers). Christian75 (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upon a source search and review, the topic passes WP:GNG per:

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable per NA's sources. ansh666 04:53, 26 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Malena[edit]

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

My dead grandmother is more notable. Sorry. Nnborg (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)— Nnborg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of coverage in multiple sources. This person is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see the sources needed here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Comment: the nomination is pretty close to one of the examples given in WP:OTHERSTUFF; I urge the nominator to write an article on his dead grandmother. Kaimahi (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just doubled the number of references. Kaimahi (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now has four times the number of sources as when the WP:SPA nominated it. Kaimahi (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Well, it only has four sources altogether. But it is a start. I suggest moving it to Draft space where it can be worked on, if you're open to that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)~~ [WP:Ban 03:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
  - Draft is better than no place, I guess. Kaimahi (talk) 20:08, 11 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's been some acknolwedged improvement to the article, I'm giving this a relist to allow editors to weigh in on the article as it now stands, and also to allow for a potential respose by Kaimahl to Sportfan5000's suggestion. I don't see urgent enough issues here to rush. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - this sounds like the best option, so it can be worked on and improved further. I can't really determine any outstanding notability either way, but I can sort of see how, with some editing, it could pass. Mabalu (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, or userfy if the consensus is that it needs further work on sourcing. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC) FWIW, by it, I mean the article, not the subject of the article. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for two reasons: improvements to the article, and procedurally, because of the insulting tone by the SPA nominator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are all extremely local. This is not the type of independent, unrelated coverage we sully expect for someone to generate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali Hindu language martyrs[edit]

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

Re-creation of Bengali Language Movement with POV pushing. Cited sources do not mention the religious backgrounds of those who fought for the Bengali language movement. This article discriminates those martyrs based on their religion. There is no such "Bengali Hindu language" but there is only "Bengali language". Benfold (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for confusion. There is no intention to demean the Bengali Language Movement. This is intended to be a list of the Bengali Hindu martyrs who died for the cause of Bengali language in Assam. You are right there is nothing called "Bengali Hindu language". The title should be read as "List of 'Bengali Hindu' 'language-martyrs'". Honestly there is no intention to discriminate anyone for the basis of religion. However, as you might know that in Assam, the Bengali Hindus are identified as "Bengali Hindus" only. In that regard, the title should not be considered POV. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologies for any mistake but how do you conclude they were Hindus? Bengali names do not necessarily conclude they were Bengali Hindus. The sources you cited in the article being discussed and the Bengali language movement of Barak Valley in Assam mention only "Bengali people" and neither Bengali Hindus nor Bengali Muslims. While the Barak Valley has more or less equal no. of Bengali Muslims and Bengali Hindus then how do you conclude only Hindus fought for this movement? Please, show me reliable references and I will be more than happy to withdraw this nomination.

Please look at the family names. They are Bhattacharya, Sutradhar, Debnath, Niyogi, Deb, Pal, Sarkar, Chakraborty, Biswas, Purakayastha, Chakraborty and Das. If you look at the first names, all of them are Bengali or Sanskrit words. None of them are Arabic or Persian. So in all probability they are Hindus. Further proof is that they all were cremated and their memorials are located next to the crematorium in Silchar. It further proves that the martyrs were Hindus. I do not claim that only Hindus fought for this movement. I only listed the martyrs as Bengali Hindus because they were indeed Bengali Hindus. I do not intend to demean the sacrifice of any Bengali Muslim or Manipuri who took part in this movement. I do not intend to demean the sacrifice of 21 Feb martyrs either. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Family names doesn't matter at all and Wikipedia articles need proper sourcing for religious information. Like, Budhadev Bhattacharya is not a Hindu and similarly Taslima Nasrin is not a Muslim. Your probability is a original research.Benfold (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - delete serious POV with no reliable source Shrikanthv (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources cited. Some people in this list meet Wikipedia notability criteria as individuals for reasons related to being "Bengali Hindu language martyrs". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources you're refering to? I can only see two references. One is cited for Kamala Bhattacharya and other source is from a website whose notability is questionable. Those individuals are not the concern here. The concern is about the page that list the individual based on their religion for which there are no citations. The second source do not even contain the word "Hindu". In Bengali language movements Bengalis irrespective of their religion, fought for the cause but this article list some people labelling them as Hindus without any source. I see it as original research discriminating those who fought for the movement. Benfold (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When citing reference, I think reliability is more important aspect. Frontier Weekly is a left leaning journal published from Kolkata since 1968. It was founded by Indian journalist and poet Samar Sen. Many books and papers cite from this journal. I don't think its reliability is questionable. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which and whose many books and papers cite from this journal? Lets consider the journal as a reliable source for the time being then again the journal do not have the word "Hindu" at all to support your claimsBenfold (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep POV claim is unfounded. This is not a recreation of any other article with a different name. It is clearly a list. Lack of citation regarding religious background should not be a criteria for AfD. It is obvious from the family names of the listed persons that they are Bengali Hindus. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list is indeed a POV which distinguishes the individuals based on their religion without a single source to support their religious background. Please, read WP:Source list. This fails Wikipedia's policy of verifiability.Benfold (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to [24]. The writer has explicitly mentioned that the martyrs were cremated in a funeral pyre. This clearly proves that the martyrs were Hindus. I'll add it to references. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Martyrs can be merged to the main article. I did not find anything to relate Hindu with the article. All the sources present in the article refers to only Bengali people. The Bengali news source[25] in the article also mention "Altaf Hossain Majumdar" (Bengali: আলতাফ হোসেন মজুমদার), a Muslim name as one of the distinguished leaders in the movement. This news[26] from The Independent relates leaders Abdul Matlib Mazumdar, Moinul Hoque Choudhury and general muslims in the language movement. So, it is a POV to create a Hindu only list while the religion was oblivion in the struggle for Bengali language. Thank you.--Bisswajit 05:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the list contains names of people who died in three separate incidents. So it is not possible to merge the whole list into any single article. And this is what lists are for. According to WP:ARTICLE, a list is also a valid article. Whether the contents of a list may be written in the main article or not is not a criteria for deletion. BengaliHindu (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added this source[27] from Cultural Survival in the article to make it more neutral because the Bengali refugees were not only Hindus. The Refugees were both Hindus and Muslims. Thank you.--Bisswajit 05:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Muslim migrants from East Pakistan to Assam between 1947 to 1971 are refugees or not is a legal matter. However, your reference does not say that Muslim people migrated to the Barak Valley region. People like Mazumdar or Choudhury or other Muslims who participated in the movement did not migrate from the territory of East Pakistan. If only Bengali Hindus died in the language movement, and they are listed as Bengali Hindus, it can't be a POV. If so, then calling a Bengali Hindu a Bengali Hindu is a POV. What a shame! BengaliHindu (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Religious affiliation of a person has to be supported with a citation from a reliable source. Going with the references, none of them actually talk about the religious affiliation of the persons. Moreover, I don't think all the persons listed here meet our notability guidelines as the articles on Sachindra Chandra Pal, Tarani Debnath, Birendra Sutradhar, Kanailal Niyogi have few sources with only passing mentions.--Zayeem ^(talk) 07:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Proof about "linguistic affiliation", "religious affiliation" and whatever b******t affiliation as needed by people (who are not even remotely related to the region in question) can be found on the internet, on facebook pages or ask anyone in Assam. I don't understand why do people ask for pages to be deleted when they don't know the history of a region. Barak Valley or Lower Assam is a much unheard region. When people don't know the history of a region, they shouldn't comment. I'm not from Karnataka or Bangladesh, so I can't comment on what happened 50 years ago in a small town of Karnataka or Bangladesh. People should know the history of a place and then comment. Some day people will say those who died in 1984 were not Sikhs, they were Hindus! Imagine how a Sikh will feel at that time. Don't brand everything as POV. AkhilKumarPal (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename to List of Bengali language martyrs from Barak Valley. Although, all the persons listed in the article were most definitely Hindus, but the article, with the present title, definitely comes across as POV pushing. Shovon (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TITLE, per User:Kmzayeem and User:Bisswajit.Iniciativass (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for serious POV pushing.KingofEnggs (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a valid POV candidate. Nothing to attach with a religion. Darkesthoursoflife († • ©) 06:19, 29 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan Dasgupta[edit]

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

Please add any known source of third party recognition Shrikanthv (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the recently added reference from the University Grants Commission website, I propose to remove the "delete" tag. Pranabnlp (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Above mentioned award only seems minor and not enough to establish notability. However, GScholar shows several highly cited publications, sufficient to meet WP:ACADEMIC#1. --Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A GS h-index of around 30 gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 in this moderately cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I request the admins to do a rethink on the "delete" tag. Pranabnlp (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xxanthippe and Randykitty reasoning.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:30, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lorde performances[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic enough to warrant its own article. Perhaps information could be worked into the Pure Heroine article or Lorde's main article. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 10:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you to clarify: is your issue its lack of encyclopedic data, its notability or do you believe it is a content fork? I am not sure which of the three you are asserting. Adabow (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article on Lorde. NealeFamily (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a reason for this !vote, please? Adabow (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just spotted - there does not seem to be anything that makes her performances notable on there own. There are also only a few and these could just as easily be included as a paragraph in the Lorde page NealeFamily (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My apologies to those involved in the article, but I feel that this crosses into the what Wikipedia is not territory (directory, indiscriminate collection of information, etc). In a couple of years, there could be literally hundreds of performances, ranging from impromptu performances at private events right up to festival headlinings. While lists of releases and lists of tours are worthy of inclusion, I do not feel that lists of performances would be. J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I have removed the "one-off concerts" section. I only added it after seeing the similar section at List of Madonna concert tours, but you're right that they are WP:NOT-type data. I don't mean to argue WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but see also Category:Lists of concert tours, where consensus seems to be that these sorts of lists are useful. Adabow (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a list of concert tours is potentially acceptable/useful, but that's a very different thing from a list of performances, and there'd be no need for a separate list article in Lorde's case until she has embarked on many more tours. J Milburn (talk) 11:38, 23 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UnRated Magazine[edit]

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

I found this article while attempting to determine if the website is reliable. While I think the site may qualify as a reliable source, it fails WP:NWEB. It's been tagged with sourcing issues for several years now, and my own searches have turned up nothing useable. The article itself consists mostly of external links. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. Hot Stop 06:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I didn't see any secondary independent coverage on the first page of either Google web or Google books. The reason to keep this is so that Wikipedia editors don't have to spend time searching to figure out what this topic is. [28] shows that this is a volunteer organization of 30 people. They have been around since 2001 and have an online archive of articles. Another reason to keep is that nominators should review the What links here before starting an AfD, and there is no advice here on what to do about the numerous red links a deletion would create. Nominators are also advised to consider WP:ATD, the alternatives to deletion. The technical policy issues here can be resolved by merging this material to a suitable target, and create one if necessary. Primary sources are WP:RS to report about themselves. Unscintillating (talk) 21:43, 9 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 12:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources; all the external links are just pointers into the subject's own web site (or related sites), thus fails WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are WP:RS to report about themselves. Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madan Deodhar[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP of a minor.

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this child actor in order to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could not find any promising sources, but I also don't know Hindi or Marathi, nor do I claim being an expert on searching for sources in India. For what it is worth since Deodhar was born in 1994, he is not a minor, since he is over 18.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for having played lead roles in some critically acclaimed multi-award winning offbeat films. Article amended accordingly. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:49, 28 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 21 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. The suggestion to rename this for the process, not the machine which performs the process, seems reasonable, but that sounds like the kind of content debate which should be carried out on the article's talk page, so no action on that from this AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High viscosity mixer[edit]

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

This article isn't notable. For the present time, at least, it would be better to focus effort on Industrial mixer. RSido (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Short article without much potential for further expansion; can easily be integrated into other(s), such as Industrial mixer as mentioned. Amp71 (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep High viscosity mixing is a distinct, well-studied, industrial process and its application and means of success are a serious discipline. It would be better named after the process than the instrument, but any one voting delete could have first done a google book and a scholar search to give you pause as to your own assumptions about the topic and its notability. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep "High viscosity mixing" seems to be a notable topic, with chapters and sections in books like [29] and [30] and articles like [31]. There are academic articles such as [32] and [33]. The article is a stub and needs development and sourcing, but these are surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:32, 27 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. After 30 days on Afd and 2 relists already, I just can't bring myself to relist this again, so I'm going to have to call this NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Thin article for what appears to be a very minor award. No source more recent than 2003, no apparent notability in business world except to people organizing it and people who've received it.

This is a second nomination, but there hasn't been any attempt to improve the article since the first nomination. Mosmof (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the notability, marginal though it may have been, was shown last time. HighBeam has more than 1200 hits for this [34]; I suspect that the great majority of them are based on press releases, but the fact that the mentions continue to show up in media outlets suggest to me that they aren't any less notable than they were, anyway. Here's a 2010 example from Forbes where the award was mentioned in connection with someone's bio [35]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But that's precisely what I meant when I wrote "no apparent notability in business world except to people organizing it and people who've received it". This is the kind of award that exists so an executive can casually drop in "___ won a Stevie..." in a publicist-pushed vanity article. It's just a passing mention, a glorified resume padder. I don't think that establishes notability at all. All it tells us is that the awards have a diligent PR firm working for it, and enjoys a symbiotic relationship with the people who are nominated for and awarded. Mosmof (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I guess I should point out the issue I have with the original AFD. Of the three articles cited there as evidence of notability, one is a press release. Another appears to be a part of the initial PR push (after which press coverage becomes close to zero), and while I can't access the third article about Richard Branson winning the award, the title suggests it's a press release too. Now, I suppose the multiple articles published in April/May 2003 would technically give this article the OK under WP:N, I don't think it follows the spirit of the rule. It seems apparent that this award doesn't warrant coverage on its own merit (especially once its novelty has worn off), and only gets vanity mentions from people looking to make their CVs look shinier. Mosmof (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's written here in our article is promotional (compare what it says about the judges with what their own FAQ says [36] ), and it becomes clear some rewriting is necessary. But from what? A list of single one-off mentions from thousands of press releases from awardees? From primary sources? The GNG exists to ensure we're able to write objectively from third-party sources, but I'm not at all sure what we can actually write here without undercutting our own principles of verifiability and neutral point of view. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:11, 10 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 21 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Coffee[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for this wiki. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generally under-editors of magazines are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 21 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Herrera[edit]

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

This dude is not notable. ChiaGrape888 (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NMUSIC as a member of several notable bands and there's plenty of coverage available, e.g. from first few pages of Google results: [37], [38], [39]. --Michig (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 6 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you kidding me? He was in Fear Factory! They were huge in the 1990s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been a member of multiple notable bands so redirecting to Fear Factory would not be optimal. Deletion does not make sense since the subject is, at the least, a plausible search term. And given the coverage on him (per the above and other sources like these), there appears to be enough material to support a standalone article. Gong show 17:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and delete all unreferenced material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 22 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Kuwailanimamao Cartwright[edit]

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

Per a suggestion in a successful Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Napulahaokalani Cartwright), I am nominating various other relatives who are equally unnotable. This isn't ancestry.com. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion of all - Pretty sure it wasn't the intent of Kavebear to use Wikipedia as if it were a genealogy site, but simply create articles for all of the relatives of the royal family....but then not all of them are notable enough for mention in an entire article. References are seriously weak...so delete.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because none of their articles show any indication of notability:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable aside from who she is related to. The inclusionist in me hates seeing articles on historic figures removed, but I'm just not seeing notability of any sort here. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:06, 27 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 migrate all articles mentioned by ww2censor to Wikibooks and then delete (please ping me when the migration has been completed so that I can delete the articles). $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of postage stamps of Pakistan from 2007 to 2017[edit]

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

This is an extremely specific list of non-notable individual stamps. Iago Qnsi 13:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about this article and the others it links to? They're all in the same dreadful state. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely indiscriminate list, national postal services issue stamps all the time, why the need to list them all on WP? LibStar (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename, as it should extend only to 2016 in keeping with the other lists in this series. Philately is a hugely popular subject which is eminently suitable for an encyclopedia. One would expect to find such lists in a specialist encyclopedia. While the individual stamps may not be notable, the list of stamps is. Pburka (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This is a clear fail of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And why 2007 to 2017? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. This article is part of a series, listing stamps of Pakistan in groups of 10 years. The nation was formed in 1947, so each list covers a 10 year period starting with a year ending in 7. Pburka (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second comment Is the issue the article title or the content of the article? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lugnuts, I can only speak for myself but for me it was more than the title; I just mentioned that due to my own incredulity. The main issue is the content and to be honest, I think the other article you mentioned is just as bad. We could start another AfD there. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're all in a very poor state. I have no doubt it's a notable topic and should be covered, but sometimes it's best to start over! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to WP:BLOWITUP. I've cleaned up the article. Pburka (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes, it can be blown up and started again if it truly is notable. User:Pburka, you have cleaned it up a lot but I only see one source. At the minimum, don't you think all postage stamps from the Pakistani government which can be reliably sourced could just be in one mega-list, then? And why 2007 to 2017, of all periods? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources (which were easily found). Proposing a megalist is fine - but that's not an argument for deletion. As I explained above, the lists are broken into ten year periods, starting with the nation's founding in 1947. This list should be 2007-2016 to fit with this pattern. The 2017 end date appears to be an error which can easily be fixed by a move once the discussion is complete. Pburka (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here and migrate to Wikibooks This is exactly the sort of catalogue style listing the WikiBooks World Stamp Catalogue was designed for. All the related lists:

List_of_postage_stamps_of_Pakistan
List_of_postage_stamps_of_Pakistan_from_1967_to_1976
List_of_postage_stamps_of_Pakistan_from_1977_to_1986
List_of_postage_stamps_of_Pakistan_from_1987_to_1996
List_of_postage_stamps_of_Pakistan_from_1997_to_2006 should be migrated there to a new Pakistan listing that can be started at b:World Stamp Catalogue/Pakistan and will be a far better solution than trying to make this, and the other articles, into good notable encyclopaedic listings, which it is unlikely to ever become. We already have a number of nice Pakistani philatelic articles such as, Postage stamps and postal history of Pakistan and Revenue stamps of Pakistan plus a few listing like Designers of Pakistani stamps. ww2censor (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Pburka, I understand that you have worked hard on trying to reliably source this article and that what you're doing is a service to the online community, so I want to be clear that your effort is recognized. But what do you think about User:Ww2censor's suggestion to move this to Wikibooks? If there are already detailed articles about Pakistani postage stamps as a topic, couldn't listings for individual stamps (along with images if you have them) be moved to a different Wiki and still be accessible to the public? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My argument to keep isn't that it's WP:USEFUL, but rather that it meets the standards for inclusion which we, the community, have established. Pakistan's commemorative postage stamps (in aggregate) are notable, as multiple reliable sources have covered them in some depth. The list is neither arbitrary nor indiscriminate, and the topic is encyclopedic. I do not believe that any valid arguments for deletion have been presented in this discussion. Pburka (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm on the fence about this sort of list. It does satisfy the letter of the requirements for lists; the content is verifiable from multiple published sources, it's not ephemeral or volatile, it's of interest to thousands of potential readers. One would have a hard time coming up with an objective criterion for deciding why, say, a country's minor naval ships are listworthy, but the stamps are not. On the other hand, we've generally agreed that while all the streets of a city also objectively meet those criteria, they are not notable, although numbered highways of a country *are* deemed notable, and there is a whole systems of lists and article/article sections enumerating them. So are stamps more like city streets, or national highways? Stan (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stan Shebs: Thanks for pulling us up on the fence with you. Seriously though, your comments do make sense and I am starting to feel a bit confused about this one to be honest. I might have to switch to "I don't know." MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikibooks ww2censor is correct. As they say, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." Precisely this project exists on Wikibooks in the b:World Stamp Catalogue. Moreover, it would be needless duplication to include it both places and would detract from both projects as each catalog, separately edited, would diverge and editing both would be a waste of editors' efforts. Ecphora (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there is a consensus to move this, and its associated lists, to Wikibooks, then we should consider doing so with other simple catalogue-style lists that exist here but keep those philatelic lists that are not such simple listings. As Ecphora says duplication across the projects is rather unwise. ww2censor (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  
  We are also not a catalogue WP:NOTCATALOG, which is essentially what such lists are, just like a country entry in a Scott, Stanley Gibbons stamp catalogue or other stamp catalogue. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 21 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 16:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Koli[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. She did not contest the elections, but her death after being nominated was reported by the media. Besides this WP:RECENTISM, there is no "Significant coverage". (WP:GNG) Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Someone who was not elected. Does not pass any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Santosh Koli not contesting any election. He just a candidate of Aam Aadmi Party from Seemapuri but before election she died in a road accident.--Prateek Malviya^Talk 15:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. There really isn't much that can be said about Koli except in the context of her death. That might just be notable if it could be shown to be a conspiracy related to her candidature in the election but in fact there is no such evidence. Despite the various political soundbites, there is nothing to distinguish this from any other hit-and-run event. Even if there were, it would probably only merit a paragraph in, say, Delhi Assembly election, 2013. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuccessful political candidate. Not known otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 00:48, 28 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 16:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ROCKI[edit]

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

it serves only to promote or publicise a product WOWIndian ^Talk 13:43, 11 March 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 March 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the article is no longer unambiguously promotional and/or spammy there is no evidence of notability. De728631 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of notability from WP:RS

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Druckrey[edit]

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

There is no indication in the article that this person is notable per the standards of WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. There are no secondary sources to establish notability included in the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a high bar to passing WP:PROF as a book editor rather than a writer — high citations alone aren't good enough to convince me, because the notability for that should more likely go to the people who wrote the content. I'd need instead to see book reviews that specifically pointed to the editing of the collection as being worth noting. And in this case the citation counts aren't even particularly high. I don't see any other evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here I am following David Eppstein regarding the editor category. Likewise, his curating would put him in the WP:CREATIVE category, which seems a tough one indeed for that role, and I don't see that he passes.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 27 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 Muhsin_al-Ramli#Published_works. actually merge, per DGG Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dates on My Fingers[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muhsin_al-Ramli#Published_works. I did find an article in Spanish, but I couldn't really find anything in English. There may be Arabic sources, but I don't have the actual Arabic term to search with. I have the romanization, but that's not really that effective. I'll ask someone from the Iraqi WP to help look for sources in Arabic. If they can find sources, I'm open to changing my mind. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on the author. that is, merge the publication information, and a few words about the plot. The current section on the plot is unacceptable, being a pastiche of the references listed at the end of the article, tho not a copypaste of any one of them in particular. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tokyogril79 and DGG. Makes the most sense, and I too couldn't find English sources. GRUcrule (talk) 15:04, 31 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott's Factory[edit]

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

Despite the three references in the article (two independent, one just reprinting "official records" so not really helping for notability), I don't see what this building, this factory, is supposed to be notable for. If the skirmish is notable, then that should have an article, not the building. Google searches for more info from reliable sources did not yield any good indication why this topic is notable enough for a Wikipedia article: [40], [41] Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is too stubby at present, but that is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And what is your argument for keeping it? The deletion is not suggested for being too stubby, but for not being notable, so it would help if you would address that argument and not a strawman. Fram (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the factory building fails GNG. It played no notable role in the Civil War skirmish.Blue Riband► 23:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, there wasn't a battle/skirmish in this area worth noting, just the enemy encountering each other in that random location. Secret ^account 00:53, 29 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Usher[edit]

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

I do not see how anything here is remotely suitable for an encyclopedia. I almost never use the term "vanity page", but I think it's the best description. That there are references does not matter, the more important policy is that we are not a personal website, and are not a tabloid. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment because I haven't made up my mind. I remember this story, it received widespread, international coverage, so since notability isn't temporary, it meets GNG. However, while I usually reserve this argument for an article I want kept, GNG is a guideline, not policy. Perhaps a more appropriate thought (recognizing isn't even a guideline) for this article is WP:TNT. It appears much more appropriate for Facebook than an encyclopedia. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 6 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He was famous for one event and has been living off it since. This is a tricky one for sure, there are lots of refs but they tend to note selling his life or derivatives. Deletion probably fits into some policy but I couldn't guess what. Szzuk (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If the Disney project comes to anything, we will probably need the article, but I am dubious of its present value. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I've seen a solid number of citations included BBC, ABC News, and coverage from CNN International that mentions him in notable fashion. These articles do not mention him in passing. Coverage from multiple reliable sources passes WP:GNG, if tone is an issue, which I in my opinion, has been resolved then the article can still be edited and corrected. I am citing WP:PRESERVE on this one. Valoem ^talk 18:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 21 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thendral (TV series)[edit]

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

An IP removed a PROD on this article.Original PROD said: "NN run-of-the mill TV show. No sources assert notability."

The article has no sources asserting to its notability. It is a very long description of the plot and the cast It reads like a PR promo from the TV network. Alexf^(talk) 16:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Are all TV shows inherently notable just because they aired? Are we to have a listing of all TV shows everywhere? By the thousands? The long unsourced plot description reeks of original research. Unless reliable independent sources are found, this is just a veiled advertisement. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A 1000+ episodes show is notable to stay. AfDs are not for cleanup. I see nothing promotional/advertorial in it. You may remove peacock terms if you find them. Also, per WP:FILMPLOT, "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I have investigated the sources in this article, and I do not believe that they suffice to establish the notability of this TV show. Two are about actors in the show, and mention the show only in passing, and two are very run-of-the-mill directory listings. The fifth is now a deadlink, but I found it on Wayback Machine and it was just a TV guide directory listing as well. At the very least, the huge sprawling plot summary section needs to be cut back severely. Reyk _YO! 21:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly a notable show, the article needs improvement, like most Indian soap articles. Has no one checked the TRP ratings for it yet? This is a fairly popular show.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 21 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 16:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Kositsky[edit]

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

Municipal councillor and unsuccessful mayoral candidate in a small town who fails WP:POLITICIAN (city councillors pass it only in major metropolitan "world cities"), and lacks any claim of notability strong enough to get him past another notability guideline instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politician with nothing to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nomination says it all. PK T(alk) 20:04, 24 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 16:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Hunter (performer)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor: no major company or west end leads, one appearance in a television talent show, does not appear to have attracted any significant attention. Yet another PROD removed by page creator with no explanation: page author is an spa who has also created (deleted) articles on the individuals band & recordings. TheLongTone (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem to meet our notability standards, and it looks like this article was created for promotional reasons (to increase visibility of the band Reemer). -- Atama頭 18:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find coverage or other evidence to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:ENT, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:GNG at this time. Gong show 07:53, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Love: The Story of Ayu[edit]

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

No evidence of notability (tagged since june 2009!), consists almost entirely of plot. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is some potential for notability, as the series seems to span multiple sequels, one spin-off, and a live-action drama series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the page about the series as a whole, as opposed to this specific story arc. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese page has several sources on it from what I can see. I've asked people from the anime/manga project to help with sourcing since any sources will be entirely in Japanese. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've made this into a page for the series as a whole. I am having trouble finding sources in English, but the Japanese WP page has several on there from book and newspaper sources. I've also found where this manga had two live-action TV series and a theatrical film based upon the various arcs. This is generally enough to pass notability guidelines as a whole for books. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese WP page also seems to show that there have been other videos made for the other story arcs, but I'm going to leave those off this page until I can have someone verify the page, as I'm going by Google Translate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another side note: We should avoid using the English translated title this was under. The problem is that this series has never been brought over to English officially, so we should stick to the Romanizations of the Japanese titles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple mangas, two anime series and a live film adaptation. The coverage is all going to be in Japanese because this was not released in English. Does this article lack details, yes, but it is fairly notable and should be spared a page to cover its entire media. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Deep Love as the first Deep Love is highly notable as the first cellphone novel:
- Here's an online academic paper that references Deep Love in its intro. It should help for the background. [42]
- Japan Today article [43] mentions Deep Love as the first cell phone novel.
- Reading Worldwide article on cellphone novels: [44]
- CNN article on cellphone novels: [45] -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:24, 23 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Hyatt[edit]

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

Delete, while providing sources they appear to largely be from sites the article subject uses, has a connection with or is only trivially mentioned and notability is not at all clear. I feel that this person fails GNG. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although several of the sources are not independent or are passing mentions, I see enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that I think she just scrapes by on notability. I readily admit that others may disagree in good faith. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Any "social media strategist" has to be looked at closely, as fairly and objectively as possible. The negative issues of COI, paid-editing and self promotion surround them like a bad air, but on the other hand unjustly deleting creates problems for Wikipedia because it motivates strategists to find paid editing "help" to get past AfD gatekeepers. In this case I looked closely at each of the 19 sources listed. A few dead links, a few trivial mentions. The majority are interviews, Q&A type articles. These are not fully independent and shouldn't represent the majority of the sources. They show some notability but I don't think we should build a case on mostly interviews. The only source that is unambiguous is BerkshiresWeek. OTOH she was the publicist for funkmeister George Clinton 10 years ago, that's no funky thing, so there may be other older sources out there that establish notability. -- GreenC 01:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing of any substance or substantial coverage to really warrant notability. In my opinion, this seems like clear advertisement for her firm. Pearljambandaid (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Article looks like bombardment of references.Iniciativass (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE and Cullen. The OurSource is possibly reliable. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:26, 27 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 James Herbert Brennan . Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barmy Jeffers[edit]

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

Not notable fictional character from a book that don't have its own wikipedia page. ...William 01:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps move the page and retitle it to refer to the series of books rather than the character? The page only got created for the character because the J.H. Brennan page pointed there instead of to pages for the three books, or for the series as a whole. HRDingwall (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Herbert Brennan article. The real question is: Where are the sources establishing notability? I did a brief search and turned up nothing, but that certainly may be more of a referendum on my Googling skills more than anything else. I'd also note that the author's article has its own notability issues (lack of reliable sources)... GRUcrule (talk) 15:13, 31 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyepudzayi Bona Mugabe[edit]

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

I don't find any reliable sources to verify this person's existence. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with the nominator in this regard: reliable sources in the article do verify her existence. She is the daughter of a famous man. Some would say an infamous man. But notability is not inherited and she has done nothing notable on her own. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. I must have been tired. I could swear I looked first to see if the article itself had references, but I guess I missed them. On the other hand, Google this morning turns up absolutely nothing for that full name, "Nyepudzayi Bona Mugabe", that isn't copied from Wikipedia or posted on some other wiki- or -pedia. Google News has nothing. I tried searching without the Bona as well; but it didn't occur to me to try it without her first name. —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request withdrawn, that is, speedy keep. It didn't occur to me earlier to search for "bona mugabe" alone. I just did, and discovered that there are scads of articles in reliable sources about her, mostly about her exorbitantly expensive wedding, with her years spent studying in Asia being another frequent topic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Largo. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:27, 29 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 March Engineering. There isn't a great consensus on what to do here but clearly this article isn't quite notable enough for a standalone article. I have therefore gone for the least destructuve outcome of a redirect as a temporary measure pending further discussion on what to do with the article. A list of cars is probably the best outcome but this is an editorial decision and I don't want to make an editorial decision here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 92S[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, this is just one of hundreds of racing projects that never came to fruition for various reasons. Some cars that never actually raced have established notability, but this car never got beyond the very basic early design stages and nothing was really built. It's manufacturer went bankrupt, its aerodynamicists went bankrupt, the only knowledge of its existence is from an early presentation model and an aerodynamic mockup, and the fact that an engineer wrote an article on its aerodynamics. All we really have is WP:STATS and WP:CRUFT. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to March Engineering. While something that never physically existed can absolutely be notable, it still needs to meet WP:GNG - which I'm not seeing here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest the nominator reads WP:HOUND, because their actions are getting very close to this mark, if they aren't already. If you don't stop WP:WIKISTALKING me, then I will file an ANI against you. As to the merits of this article, we have the Mulsanne's Corner reference, which is very useful, we have a paragraph in this book, and I would imagine it appears in offline-only Group C books as well. So Keep, due to those two sources being just about enough for GNG on their own, and the nominator's questionable motives. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You edited articles on my Watchlist. Am I not supposed to see what's been changed? I mean, how else would I find out you deleted an entire article and history without even going through the process of discussion...

Lack of resources is not the topic of discussion here. Notability is. Which is specifically element 1 and element 5 of WP:GNG. The additional source simply says the same thing the article already does, that a design was announced and then cancelled. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More rubbish being spouted, and irrelevancies about a different topic that happened in a completely different timeframe (was your ego that pricked that this is the result?) It makes precisely fuck-all difference what exactly the source says about the car, and it has never been a requirement for the different sources in an article to be on completely different things - that's something you've made up, as usual. Equally, it does add something on top of what the article already has - a proposed sale price, for example. (Nice introduction of a factual inaccuracy on Lancia LC2, whilst stalking me, by the way - Abarth wouldn't have acquired a car it built and that had campaigned under a different branch of the same company, but don't let that stop you! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does all that really matter when the subject very obviously fails notability? --Falcadore (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall saying it was a requirement that the sources say different things. I'm pointing out this new source adds nothing to establish notability. "Information exists" is not notability, as pointed out in WP:GNG, notability can be presumed but not guarenteed. There is no significant coverage, and really can there ever be for such a project? The³5₉ (Talk) 07:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would normally suggest merge and redirect to March Engineering but can find no mention of the car anywhere in the March Engineering article, which underlines it's lack of notability. Fails GNG. Not just as failure as a car but a failure at everything it did, it never raced and nobody missed it. It absense was not even notable. There are SOOOO many much more notable March cars to write articles about, like Grand Prix and Indy 500 winners, why waste time on this one? --Falcadore (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't obviously fail GNG, as it is borderline at the very least. The fact I actually have some decent sources to write it with, and yet people still whine (standard). WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and "It absense was not even notably" is utterly meaningless. I'm not averse to a merge and redirect if that's what consensus says, but outright deletion only suits the nominator's overinflated ego. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's pleasing to see you aren't taking this personally. A redirect is used when there is something to redirect too. With no mention of the 92S at the March Engineering article there is no reason to redirect to it. --Falcadore (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Falcadore: The fact that it isn't mentioned in the article right now doesn't mean that it cannot be merged and mentioned there. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a good reason for doing so. We can't even really say the car exists/was built. --Falcadore (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not you that has hounded me off Wikipedia, so it's not you I'm pissed at.. Let's make this very, very obvious to The 359: I request deletion. There. Now stop reverting the G7 tag.. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the blanking and prod on the article space is of what use then? The³5₉ (Talk) 08:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a PROD, a CSD template. Stop deliberately misrepresenting me, you've already won. Author requests deletion through blanking the article, which is G7. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, the hounds win. Tagged under CSD:G7. Hope you're happy about wasting my time and effort to satisfy your egos. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what G7 is meant for. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author requested deletion; that is exactly what G7 is meant for, and your attempts to drag this out further are just plain lame. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, however, a license to break WP:3RR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which I did not do, and you've forgotten not to template the regulars. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and redirect but do not delete. Mulsanne's Corner is a reliable car specialized site as well as this book. The content of the article doesn't fit well to the March Engineering article, the best option would be (in my opinion) creating of List of March vehicles and prototypes and subsequent merge. The notability is really thin but the content might be useful for car experts and fans. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you can't find any mention of the 92S, then you really aren't looking very hard. Try "Ctrl+F" and type in "92S". So yes, it is mentioned in the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 21 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Almazan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "No evidence of sufficient notability. Lack of real coverage from independent sources." - this has not been addressed. C 679 20:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. C 679 21:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. C 679 21:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 14 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Had a search, excluding all the networking/social sites, and other than a few passing mentions in blogs, found absolutely nothing to show he has independent notability. Mabalu (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:35, 30 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 soft delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

InJung Oh[edit]

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

Doesn't have multiple reliable third-party sources to show notability. The page creator was notified of this at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/In Jung Oh in December. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 14 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:38, 21 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. → Call me Hahc21 00:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Rebello[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern is still valid "Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. New Radient of Maldives is not a fully-pro club. Both clubs need to be fully-pro." JMHamo (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Concur with comment re AFC appearance. Fenix down (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate to Wikipedia:Drafts. His Champions League appearance was against a non-fully professional team, however he's on a team that meets WP:FPL. The danger of simply deleting, is that it will likely be recreated rather than restored, wasting editing time, and leading to a missing history, that is seldom restored in a timely fashion. Nfitz (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - is Warren Rebello also known as Joshua Rebello? I have some possibly unreliable sources linking the two. Hack (talk) 08:40, 27 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 delete' g11, promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Green (Media Personality)[edit]

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

Biography of a radio DJ that shows no signs of notability and is rather promotional. No significant independent sources provided or found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 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 List of The Elenium and The Tamuli characters. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sparhawk[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of David Eddings' works through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. I am also nominating this related character with the same issues:

Keep both. My involvement was actually to create Sparhawk as a redirect. However Wikipedia is improved as a result of the expansion into an article. Sure the page has problem with lack of references. But that is a reason to improve it more not delete it. These two characters are main characters in a major series of books. So there is a claim of importance even if not referenced yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being major characters does not make them suitable for inclusion, as notability is not inherited. Without providing something to show notability after ten and five years in existence, simply implying that sources must exist is also an invalid argument. TTN (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added sources to the Sparhawk article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't appear to provide significant coverage of the character. They're all passing mentions describing the overall series without much singular focus on the character. For them to count, they should at least provide some sort of significant analysis of or reaction to the character. I wouldn't expect an entire chapter on the character, but I would think establishing notability would require more than a few sentences summarizing plot. TTN (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to character list or delete. These characters have not established notability independent of the book series. Seems hard to believe I read these books thirty years ago. I have vague memories of liking the characters, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep an article. Nor is the fact that they are protagonists. See WP:42 for a brief rundown on what's required for an article. Merely mentioning plot details associated with the character is not enough. We need real-world details, such as what went into its creation, inspirations, and critical analysis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Elenium and The Tamuli characters. I'm a fan of the work, and Sparhawk is a central character, but there simply isn't enough substantial independent coverage of this character to justify a standalone article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The primary argument for deletion here was that the article lacked references, but this deficiency has been remedied. There now being no valid argument to redirect-with-deletion-of-the-edit-history (WP:42 should not be cited at AfD), the remaining issue is a content issue as to whether or not this breakout article should be returned to List of The Elenium and The Tamuli characters. However, this argument has twice been rejected by the editors on the talk page. As per WP:Deletion policy, content arguments at AfD can be promptly closed by any editor. As an aside, the List article has no references, so perhaps it should have been included in this nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, I've had a look at the sources provided, and except for Bleiler which I don't have easy access to, none of them describe the character of Sparhawk (as opposed to the Elenium trilogy itself) in any great detail. One is also not independent, being the website of Eddings' publisher. I am more convinced now that this does not meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I can't quickly cite a guideline, but I think that breakout articles don't have to satisfy WP:GNG, while it is preferred that they do. I'm much more concerned in your review by the possibility that there is a substantial amount of material in the current article that is not WP:V verifiable. That would be a perfect reason to merge back to the parent article and remove the unverifiable material. The reason to keep the current article would be because it is properly WP:RS sourced so we want to WP:PRESERVE the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 11 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, slakr^\ talk / 08:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete per Lankiveil. The sources provided don't pass muster for WP:GNG best as I can tell. Prefer redirect over deletion, though, as it's sort of alluded to. GRUcrule (talk) 15:02, 31 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Den (film)[edit]

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

There just doesn't seem to be enough coverage to show how this film passes notability guidelines. All I could find was an article heavily based off a press release, one article, and a notification that the film won an award at a middle level film festival- large enough to give some notability but not large enough to give enough to keep on that alone. PROD contested. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's some coverage at Film Threat here that indicates it received mainstream press coverage and caused an uproar. Not sure if that's exaggeration, but Film Threat is usually reliable, even if they are excitable fanboys. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF: Twitch Film [46] Film Threat [47] et al While not as wide and earth-shattering as we could wish, it has non-trivial coverage is in sources recognized as reliable for independent genre films. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the first source and I think I put it in the article, but the second source is a reprint of a press release and the Google hits are pretty much the same. If you can find a review in a RS, I'm willing to withdraw this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to determine how the Film Threat interview of the filmmaker and his discussing the film is a press release. Perhaps press releases borrowed from the interview? Twitch Film offers new information and includes the press release in their analysis... but they make note in their article that they are using a press release in support of their other information (rare honesty). And it does seem to have a bit more that trivial coverage in the online e-zine Acid Logic. More to do... more to do. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant that the Twitch Film was primarily a press release. I'm just concerned about it holding up with notability in the future if it was nominated again (assuming it will be kept). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I like that in their honesty they shared the press release as an acknowledged release in context to their additional information. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I liked that as well, although part of me couldn't help but wince at that since it would make it a potentially unusable source for some. It's the type of thing that if left as is, could result in someone nominating it again in the future. It's times like this that I wish I did work for one of the horror review sites so I could ask one of the reviewers there to go over the film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 5 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, slakr^\ talk / 09:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W̶e̶a̶k̶ ̶d̶e̶l̶e̶t̶e̶. Currently the sources are not reliable or notable enough. These need to be expanded considerably to keep. --PDX er1 (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PDX er1 and Tokyogirl79, as the topic of this film was covered by CNN, perhaps you may wish to change to a keep, even if only "weak"? (Needs latest Quicktime player) transcript . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After ^{Michael Q.}'s comment I went through and added two sources while removing two repeated ones. At this point I'm convinced there's enough coverage for an article, hoping that there might be a few more mainstream sources added later. --PDX er1 (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm satisfied that there's enough coverage for an article here – if not now, then we'll dig up enough later. Multiple reliable sources indicate there was a controversy over the film, and now we've got indications of mainstream coverage, as well. I think this saves it from being a case of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. It's not a lot to go on, but it's at least something. If nothing else, this at least deserves mention in Saw (2004 film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:02, 27 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 delete a7, doesn't assert notability; g11 promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donyshia Benjamin[edit]

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

Biography of a radio station marketing manager that shows no signs of notability and is terribly spammy. Significant independent sources are lacking and cannot be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also cannot find independent sources to pass the bar of WP:BIO. Novusuna ^talk 15:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing notable about this marketing manager.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - managers, producers, and assistant directors are rarely found to be notable. I don't see that this is any exception. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 24 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahal Khan[edit]

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

No indication of notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). He is mentioned only in passing in the references given, and there seems to be no substantial coverage of him online in reliable, secondary sources. Ruby Murray 06:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 06:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The indications of notability for Shahal Khan.

1. The Nation: World’s leading investors assure of investment in energy sector

"On the occasion, Shahal Khan said that Royal Partners Energy would invest $800 million by setting up 660 megawatt power plant in Punjab and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to this effect had already been signed."^[1]

2. Pakistan provides immense business potential for international investors: Dar

"Alun Richards, Chief Investment Office, Shahal Khan, Royal Partners Energy, Nicolas Perrault Director Calvalley Petroleum, Pedro Costa, Managing Director, Yazit yusuff, Head of Capital Markets, RHB Islamic Bank, Haji Malik Shah, Colt Resources, Waleed Mushtaq, Pakisan International Business & Investment Council and Economic Advisor Finance Ministry Rana Asad Amin were also present in the meeting."^[2] — Tabmi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete, only passing references and sources directly associated with the subject of the article. No substantial coverage. SchreiberBike talk 00:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the deletion template was edited out of the article by User:Tabmi. I have restored it. SchreiberBike talk 00:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SchreiberBike, please explain what you mean by "Delete, only passing references and sources directly associated with the subject of the article. No substantial coverage." I am trying to understand how I can better enhance this article and will comply to Wikipedia's editing code. I just need to understand what you mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabmi (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabmi:, The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is referred to as notability. There has been much debate and many words written about what constitutes notability. The summary is at WP:GNG; there's also much more detail there. Basically, there needs to be significant coverage of a person in sources independent of the individual. The references in Shahal Khan are either directly associated with the subject of the article, like a company website, or passing references, quotes from Khan, but not articles about Khan. If there are articles or books written about Khan out there, those references could be added to the article and that would help establish notability. I hope that helps. SchreiberBike talk 19:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SchreiberBike:, You clarification is much appreciated. I have rewritten several aspects of this article and used alternate sources.22:10, 8 March 2014 (EST)

@SchreiberBike:, Hi SchreiberBike, may I close this conversation, or are there any additional steps required to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies?

@Tabmi:, I just went through the seven references in the article. Five don't mention Khan, Globalturk Capital is directly associated with Khan as he is one of their "partners", the Bloomberg Buisnessweek profile is only a profile, not independent reporting. Articles or books written about Khan would help establish notability. My guess is that he is not now notable and I would not change my comment above recommending deletion. Many important people do not meet the criteria to be part of Wikipedia. SchreiberBike talk 18:46, 11 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SchreiberBike:, I will go through the source list mentioned in your previous comment.

1. http://globalturkcapital.com/managementSkh.aspx

You are correct. This source should be removed as it is directly associated with Khan. I will verify if there are any third party sources related to this topic (books, magazines, newspapers).

2. http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=135039333&privcapId=130399224

Although this source is a profile, it is written by a third party source [Bloomberg Businessweek] unrelated to the Shahal Khan individual. In this case, the profile relates to the overall coverage of the following company snapshot:

Independent Power and Renewable Electricity Producers > Company Overview of Zeba Solar Private Limited

In the case of the Wikipedia article, this source is used to show that the individual is involved in several types of industries.

3. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Centile%27s+New+Partnership+Model+Serves+as+a+Catalyst+for+the+VoIP...-a0136637591

This source does mention Shahal Khan in the article:

Many carriers and new entrants to the VoIP market find that the initial capital outlay in the deployment of an infrastructure, coupled with a lack of knowledge, are the two most prohibitive factors in deploying a robust VoIP network. The IntraSwitch possesses all of the key features needed to launch VoIP for residential and enterprise customers. With Centile's new partnership business model, carriers can benefit from a solution with high level features and focus on building market share.

"Centile's objective in launching a partnership business model is to allow hundreds of new VoIP companies to grow rapidly. This is a central part in helping the future transition to database communication services from the traditional telephony network. VoIP and related multimedia services need to be focused on end client value", said Shahal Khan, Centile CEO. "If carriers can couple top quality services with an aggressive pricing strategy to enter the market, they will then enable critical mass and growth to occur in the VoIP industry over the next 3 years and beyond. Centile's goal is to be the rocket fuel for many companies that want to experience high rates of growth in this industry."

This third party source is used in this specific Wikipedia article to show that the Shahal Khan individual is involved with a notable company named Centile, which was one of the first company to get a license to provide VoIP services.

4. http://www.chamberofcommerce.com/bridgewater-nj/26115539-global-voice-telecom-llc/

Shahal Khan is mentioned in this source. But I see that chamberofcommerce.com seems to be a PR tool for some companies. I will remove this source as it is not a credible source for an encyclopedia.

5. www.aaj.tv/2014/02/pakistan-provides-immense-business-potential-for-international-investors-dar/

You are correct. This third party source does not mention Shahal Khan in detail. I have found an alternate source for this specific topic:

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-6-235557-Leading-investors-visit-RCCI

6. http://www.cleantechinvestor.com/portal/mainmenucomp/companiesq/3027-quimera/11051-quimera.html

You are correct. Although this source speaks about EV innovation from Quimera's management team, it does not mention Khan specifically in the article. I read that Khan was involved in the EV innovation industry with a notable company (Quimera) that produced the first all electric GT car in the world.

http://www.quimera-project.com/Html/Quimera-Managment.html

7. http://www.nation.com.pk/business/28-Feb-2014/world-s-leading-investors-assure-of-investment-in-energy-sector

This third party source, The Nation Newspaper, does speak of Shahal Khan. Additionally it was printed on the February 27, 2014 version of 'The Nation' Newspaper in Pakistan.

http://www.nation.com.pk/E-Paper/lahore/2014-02-28/page-8

I will make the aforementioned changes.

References[edit]

^ "World's leading investors assure of investment in energy sector". The Nation. Retrieved 4 March 2014.
^ "Pakistan provides immense business potential for international investors: Dar". AAJ News.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass notability requirements and this article is clearly promotional. --PDX er1 (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article created by a SPA fails WP:BIO. There are few usernames editing this article warrants a SPI. I'm reporting it. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reported here, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tabmi. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:31, 30 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. Absolutely no interest here. I'm boldly treating it as a successful WP:PROD — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actor Studio India[edit]

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

Promotional piece, for a non notable studio, a search for reliable secondary sources comes up empty. The one reference to the CityPlus article is not enough to make it pass WP:CORP, the other ref is about the person, not the corporation. $Erebus Morgaine (Talk)$ 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article has been recreated after being deleted on Feb. 26

Erebus Morgaine (Talk)

16:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look on recent association links and other workshop links . There you can see that it has trained some of the biggest and well known institues ,beauty pagents and colleges etc . Secondly it comes under educational institution. And you have a different guidelines for it . Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.32.170 (talk) 05:41, 2 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 21 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 Tourism in Indonesia . -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful Indonesia[edit]

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

Wonderful Indonesia is expressing slogan of Ministry of Culture and Tourism (Indonesia) to promote tourism in Indonesia, I propose that this article should be merged either into Ministry of Culture and Tourism (Indonesia) or tourism in Indonesia. WOWIndian ^Talk 12:51, 12 March 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 March 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the article deserve a separate article since it is more focussed on tourism campaign, and yes it still need expansion and elaboration. The slogan Wonderful Indonesia, and its history and campaign has somewhat knowledge value on marketing, branding, and tourism study. If we use your proposed approach — every tourism campaign articles should be deleted or merged to other tourism-related article — then the whole Category:Tourism campaigns should be deleted altogether or merged, that include other tourism campaigns such as Incredible India that should be deleted too. Gunkarta talk 13:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tourism in Indonesia - A slogan is a slogan, and usually they aren't notable, unless there's coverage about the slogan itself, which seems to be lacking. This is no Amazing Thailand or Malaysia, Truly Asia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded and elaborate on the coverage about the slogan itself and also the campaign, in new section "appreciation and criticism". Yes there is no Amazing Thailand or Malaysia, Truly Asia article (yet), but there are articles such as Incredible India and Pilipinas Kay Ganda. Gunkarta talk 09:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Narutolovehinata5. I think there's a source or two that can warrant a couple of sentences in the Tourism in Indonesia article, but the campaign itself doesn't register as notable from the sources in the article. Only two of the sources actually are ABOUT this "Wonderful Indonesia" campaign, with one about the launch and another about some criticism. GRUcrule (talk) 16:25, 31 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primecoin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete, small non notable currency which is in essence using the article as an advertising method. This may be worth a brief mention on crypto-currency but ultimately this page would take a complete rewrite to make it neutral and ultimately I do not believe it passes GNG. I was unsure if it should also have to meet WP:CORP as well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It sounds like you're claiming two reasons for deletion: (1) unambiguous advertising or promotion and (2) non-notable. The first is covered in WP:G11, "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". For the second, a page only needs to meet the criteria of one notability guideline, so either WP:GNG or WP:CORP (or even WP:WEB) is adequate. The last AfD for this article was decided only a month ago, so I'd encourage reviewers to look through that for added background. Agyle (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated these on right before leaving and I didn't review everything as far as the last discussion I just saw no consensus and went from there. It may be too soon if it was just last month. Yes I was using both GNG and Spam as my reasoning. I mentioned WP:CORP as a specific guideline within GNG, that is not at all clear. When I did review the last discussion the last one was yours and you summed it up a lot better than I did for a rationale lol. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It feels like just yesterday we had a discussion on this, almost to the point of bludgeoning. Anyway, I don't find the article excessively promotional to the point that it warrants deletion, leaving notability as its biggest concern. I !voted delete last time, but I'll have to take a look again. I think this third nomination is a bit quick in the end, though. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete how on Earth has this barely survived two nominations? It blatantly fails WP:GNG and arguably WP:PROMO. This is not a quick renomination by any means, either. Citation Needed | Talk 11:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability due to too little significant WP:RS coverage. The lack of coverage has led to over-reliance on the self-published primary source document of Primecoin's creator. Most RS coverage is minor/incidental to the subject (e.g., dealing with the server shortages or malware), and the two RS sources I consider significant coverage are from CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine, which I consider only weakly reliable sources. Half of the "keep" votes on the prior discussion seemed ill-considered, made right after 84.55.98.173 added lots of poorly-detailed cites in this version, from new/infrequent AfD reviewers who overlooked that many were not to RS sources. The other half were well-considered, reasonable differences of opinion. Agyle (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough third party coverage to warrant its own article. Probably deserves mention in the cryptocurrency article though. Chuy1530 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Currently ranked as 15th largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization Coin Market Cap, covered in The Hackers News, and is listed on crypto-trade. More research needs to be done on this article. Has anyone done a lexis nexus check?

Please note this coin has increased in market cap since the last AfD, which was less than 3 months ago. Three nomination in the last 3 months makes this a rather stacked AfD. More time is absolutely needed. Valoem ^talk 15:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Market capitalization does not establish notability, and I hope this opinion is simply ignored as a result of its argument. The "non-notable" nomination referred to the "general notability guidelines" at WP:GNG and other notability guidelines used by Wikipedia, which largely hinge on whether there are multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage about a topic. Market cap or consumer popularity are simply irrelevant to notability. I've Googled the topic several different ways. Primecoin was unveiled in Sunny King's paper on 2013-07-07, Bitcoin Magazine wrote its story day after, and CoinDesk two days after that. There have been no significant articles about the topic since that first week (which also included [48] & [49]). A few articles covered a temporary shortage of servers to rent due to Primecoin, and a few articles covered a new piece of malware that tried to steal primecoins, but outside its first week it's usually mentioned in a single sentence (e.g., The New York Times wrote in Sept. 2013 "more recently, Sunny King released a second new currency, Primecoin, that forces miners to find new strings of prime numbers — a potentially valuable task for the mathematical world.")

If I were arguing in favor of keeping the article, my main argument would be that the initial burst of coverage, in particular the Bitcoin Magazine article written the day after Primecoin's release, was significant enough to provide enough information to write a Wikipedia article, and since it was also covered by a few other sources that week, that it meets WP:GNG. That's a subjective call, what to consider "significant coverage by multiple sources", and while I don't think Primecoin meets it, I do respect that there are honest differences of opinions on that. Agyle (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Determining reliable sources can be more difficult for obscure topics such as new cryptocurrency, besides The Hackers News and Crypto-Trade, here are some additional sources I found, Coin Desk, Crypto Coin News, Bitcoin Magazine, New Scientist, The Register, and multiple foreign language sources. Just to clarify, my argument for Strong Keep refers to the plethora of sources cited within and article and additional sources which can be found, not market capitalization.

While market capitalization in no way determines notability, it certain does not harm it. Sources listed during the birth of this currency still exist and the currency has only become more notable not less. I have posted several reliable third party sources which address the WP:GNG issues in questions. Valoem ^talk 19:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider sources where Primecoin comprises a sentence or less of an article to be significant coverage, nor do I consider crypto-trade.com even arguably reliable. Agyle (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Sources found:

The first four articles I consider reliable sources and the fifth is possibly reliable. Four articles is enough for me to declare the topic marginally notable: between these and the primary sources, one can write a short verifiable article. Multiple reliable sources also satisfies the WP:GNG guideline. But I agree with Agyle that reasonable people can disagree on notability. What I don't understand is the call for deletion. Per WP:PRESERVE, a WP policy, verifiable material should be merged rather than deleted. Folks calling for deletion need to explain why we should be deleting verifiable material, rather than merging it. Possible merge targets would be, e.g., Cryptocurrency or Cunningham chain. --Mark viking (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People call for the deletion of stuff like this because there are so many of these coins trying to carve a niche that it's incredibly hard to find any sources that aren't basically just hype or sub-hype from a bunch of altcoin blogs. Take my own article Dogecoin as an example of something that is the rare exception. It's not just documented in primarily altcoin-focused articles, but in mainstream and established news sources that place an emphasis on quality of work and professionalism, such as Wired or CNN. Primecoin has Ars Technica, which is undeniably a good source, and potentially The Register. What else does it have other than a bunch of CoinDesk sources? Citation Needed | Talk 22:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest merging because the I don't think the information of this article would fit well in other articles. The topic might, and if someone thinks a bit of info on Primecoin would be useful in the other articles, they could add it now, but either now or as a result of a deletion I'd suggest they start from scratch rather than trying to preserve something from this article. Agyle (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

coindesk may be marginal in reliability. I'm uncertain if it is the only (or two) news source(s) about cryptocoins that emerged as reliable. Bitcoinmagazine's website is down right now. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 01:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By and by I return to the cryptocurrency area and every time this article is being nominated for deletion. It's argumentum ad nauseum over and over to the point of disruption. KonveyorBelt 16:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the few altcoins that should have its own article. http://www.businessinsider.com/primecoin-2013-7 http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/a-week-old-cryptocurrency-wants-to-capture-the-wasted-energy-of-bitcoins-algorithm - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 01:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are from the week Primecoin was introduced, in July 2013, as with the other sources of non-incidental coverage. WP:NOTTEMPORARY

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coin is both innovative - using the Cunningham chain and has a reasonable mount of currency in existence ~ equivalent of $4M dollars. A simple search brings up many different source discussing Primecoin and comparing its features to that of Bitcoin. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How innovative it is and its monetary value are irrelevant to the question of notability for Wikipedia's purposes. The number of different sources that discuss it is also not particularly relevant. Guidelines require reliable sources that provide significant coverage about a topic. You may feel that those criteria are met too, but they're different than the reasons you cited above, which I think should should not be considered. Agyle (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage by mainstream media is unlikely for a cryptocurrency. Personally I think a notability standard specific for cryptocurrencies should be written. If a lot of currency is in circulation it is having an impact on people lives. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a common complaint in these discussions, particularly from people infuriated that Dogecoin has an article (such mad!). Mainstream media do cover cryptocurrencies, as a quick googling of four specific sources shows. Minor coverage (a paragraph or more, but less than significant) is linked in a small font.

	The New York Times	The Wall Street Journal	Forbes	The Guardian
Auroracoin	[50]	[51]	[52]	[53]
Bitcoin	[54]	[55]	[56]	[57]
Coinye		[58]	[59]	[60]
Dogecoin	[61]	[62]	[63]	[64]
Litecoin	[65]	[66]	[67]	[68] [69]
Mastercoin		[70] [71]	[72]
Namecoin				[73]
Peercoin	[74]		[75]	[76]
Primecoin			[77]	[78]
Ripple	[79]		[80]	[81]

Agyle (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice table, thanks. --Mark viking (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People were mad about Dogecoin mainly because people got away with having pizzas and other crap sent to the nominator's house while still having nearly virtual complete support for it's inclusion from both legit and non-legit sides. This coin is a completely different scenario that relies on using mostly non-reliable sources to justify inclusion, and this is hardly the last discussion we'll likely have about it. Citation Needed | Talk 02:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seeing discussion among multiple different sources. — Cirt (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there might be one or two good sources, but the majority are blogs. Guttersville (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Guttersville (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:49, 27 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. → Call me Hahc21 00:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Baratono[edit]

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

Cannot find coverage which would support a claim to WP:GNG therefore I have to conclude not notable. _nonsense ferret 19:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've referenced news paper articles and pages where Mr. Baratono has notability, Mr. Baratono's IMDB has been linked to the article as well and I didn't even do that. That was done when it was accepted after review. The yellow box says it is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. Im confused. What other coverage is needed? It was accepted at first, now youre nominating it for deletion? Why? What should I do to get the article's nomination for deletion revoked? User:jds784

@Jds784: This is the discussion where you have the opportunity to make a case for why the article should be kept, with reference to Wikipedia's guidelines. You may find it helpful to have a read of tips on contributing to deletion discussions, and you will probably want to refer to the general guideline on notability and possibly the specific guideline for actors. The best guarantee of getting the article kept is to provide multiple examples of significant independent coverage in reliable sources per the notability guideline. I understand it seems contrary to you that someone accepted your article at the Articles for Creation review, and then it was nominated for deletion, I have looked at the references provided and searched for any other sources available, and I do not think that the article should have been accepted. Others may, or may not, disagree, including you, and they can all make the case for it being kept, or not, in this discussion. After a few days we'll see what consensus develops. For the avoidance of doubt, IMDB is not a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability, see guidelines on identifying which sources are reliable --_nonsense ferret 21:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do believe this article should be kept. While Mr. Baratono may not be Mel Gibson or Johnny Depp, he has indeed established himself as a serious actor in the industry and is currently cast for roles in upcoming feature projects as well. He is also a published writer and an accredited inventor (See citations 3 through 8). All of the article's citations have been retrieved. I don't believe this is a case for lack of notability here. User:jds784

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. None of his acting credits amount to much, so he fails WP:NACTOR, and co-inventing the "Combined rear view mirror and telephone" doesn't do much for his notability either. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Notable and pleanty of sources to back this up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Makro (talk • contribs)

You'll need to provide a bit more here - notable per which critereon, and relying on which specific sources? --_nonsense ferret 22:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Does not meet our guidelines on notability for actors. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources have been added to appease the question of notability since the article's creation. Items unreferenced and questionable have also been removed resulting in the entry having a cleaner, more direct look for the reader as other users continue to make improvements to the subject matter. Thank you for the edits everyone! User:jds784

You only get the one vote. The question of notability remains wholly unappeased I'm afraid. --_nonsense ferret 22:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured so about the vote. I was only reaffirming my stance. What else would you suggest to improve this article? User:jds784 18:52, 19 March 2014

I would suggest providing multiple examples of significant independent coverage in reliable sources like national newspapers which cover the biographical details of the subject. Significant coverage would be generally taken to mean at least a few paragraphs about the subject. Insofar as establishing notability is concerned national newspaper coverage is much more persuasive than examples from the local press, since it demonstrates more widespread interest in the subject. Passing mentions or local newspaper articles such as the ones cited in the article are rarely sufficient to establish a case for notability. Regarding the claim to notability as an actor - were there any reviews of the films in the national press which commented on his acting performance in detail such as you would expect for a well-known actor? For the claim for being an inventor - I appreciate there was one line which mentioned his name in the NYT but that isn't significant coverage, so do you have any more in-depth coverage of this invention and the inventor, has it ever been commercially reviewed or exploited? Finally, the claim regarding being a published writer - where did that publication take place? Were the publications reviewed by a reliable source in any depth? It looks to reference works the subject uploaded to youtube and another website, which I don't think should be described as publication in this context. Leaving aside the question of notability, there seems to be a significant amount of content in the article which is totally unverifiable and thereby problematic - the early life section cites no sources at all for example.--_nonsense ferret 23:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I made a good-faith edit to help cleanup the article toward making it encyclopedic instead of promotional by removing uncited and unknown titles of poetry, and User talk:67.149.35.190 reverted it. Rather than improve the article, 2 editors, including the one who reverted my edits, are adding unsourced trivia. The article includes that Baratono is acting in "numerous projects presently in pre-production" (Wikipedia is not a place to include the future) and that he was cast "with George Clooney in Ides of March as a dining guest." Several other minor roles like that are mentioned. Does not pass WP:GNG. Thus, delete. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted by Baratono himself and citations put in by me. You noted you deleted the publications section due to lack of references. Well now it has them. Better than not, wouldnt you say? -Jds784 (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

things that would make a poem worth mentioning would be independent commentary from multiple well known literary magazines or national newspapers, or books which you would find in a library. --_nonsense ferret 13:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not "better than not." Your-Poetry-Dot-Com is not considered a reliable source; anyone can post poetry there and then claim that it has been published, but that is not a literary publication. The poetry titles remain unreferenced. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - of all the references, only two contain independent, in-depth coverage. The coverage is very local, only. Does not meet WP:GNG. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lexy Hulme[edit]

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

not really notable LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, has some notability and may pass WP:ACTOR, found some sources, Pop Wrapped Interview,she has been covered on a few dance websites as well which I cannot access, and in passing on Perez Hilton, and Daily Entertainment News.Valoem ^talk 15:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure passing references in comments on a blog qualify as the sort of source we need to establish notability, and that's largely what I'm seeing in the sources above. I haven't found coverage I believe meets WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per she's just an extra, usually a dancer in films, plus there are no primary sources about her. There's one little sentence about her in an Elle article but nothing worth noting. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per j*e decker. Just because someone did a Q&A with her doesn't make her notable, and the other sources provided by Valoem don't strike me as putting the subject of this article over the WP:GNG threshold. GRUcrule (talk) 16:28, 31 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 delete, criterion G7, the only editor making substantive edits blanked the page. The text of the page had also been identified as a copyright violation. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Kierans[edit]

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

Delete, considered a csd for promotion but decided this may be the bettter rout. I think that this woman doesn't really pass the GNG. I personally think the article if kept WILL require a complete rewrite as well. If anyone else thinks it merits a csd for promotion I definitely don't begrudge adding it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 21 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. - §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Discoveries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Second attempt to create an article on this organisation, which has recieved no mainstream coverage whatsoever & is therefore still not notable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Not a single independent source... --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep It has just been created, it will take time to put in all the independent sources and build up the article.

Merge? How distinct from Walter Veith is Amazing Discoveries? Has Amazing Discoveries made a reputation for itself apart from Veith. Can this separate reputation be demonstrated? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How distinct is Joe Crews from Amazing Facts, John Boehner from the US Congress, Barak Obama from the Office of the President of the United States or that matter Martin Luther from the Lutheran Church. One is a person that holds the office currently or for a short duration, but he is not the entity or office. They are definitely very distinct, very separate, very different so I don't think merge is the direction that should be considered or taken, documenting what the entity is or has become versus just the office holder or speaker should be the work done, not merging.Simbagraphix (talk)

Delete. Lack of independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no reliable sources. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 04:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For disclosure's sake, I was alerted to this AFD by this comment on my talk page by Simbagraphix, which may have been a violation of WP:CANVASS. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 05:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)JaconaFrere asked about the request for input at the teahouse, and was told that requests as I did for input are considered legitimate, so long as they don't ask for a vote. I get numerous requests to assist in articles from other editors and that had never been an issue and this process is a bit new to me, so any quidance is appreciated.Simbagraphix (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be blatant canvassing. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, it is, as I already remarked at the other AfD concerned, the teahouse is wrong in this case. --Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get many requests for input, I dont think the editors would be doing it if that was the way the rules went. Simbagraphix (talk)

Read WP:CANVAS, it clearly details what is acceptable and what not. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor here was sent a message in one form or another, that is allowed.Simbagraphix (talk) 23:50, 28 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. → Call me Hahc21 00:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mainframe (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Non-charting musical releases. Contains trivia about members that is unrelated to the band and/or its music D P 14:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One non-charting single on a major label, other output on what appears to have been their own label so fails WP:NMUSIC, and no sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has now been revised to meet standards. This music band had a commercial single during 1985 which was listed on the national music charts of both the UK and Netherlands. Independent links to these entries have been provided in the article. I believe this now meets the requirements of WP:BAND which says at point 2 "has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". Can this page now be kept please? birdinatree (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, it's a 7 day discussion. You're permitted to fix it, but people will be verifying the sources, etc. D P 09:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant sources, self promoting. Retartist (talk) 09:45, 24 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. The only persuasive Keep argument (from a policy point of view) was from Rebecca1990 (talk · contribs), but that was enough. The second bullet point of WP:WEBCRIT says all you need to do is win a well-known and independent award, and the footnote says, Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability. They do have one win, and a number of other nominations. Personally, I'm not too impressed with AVN and XBIZ as sources, but we do have articles on them. If they're notable enough for us to have an article, I think we need to consider that they're reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MET-Art[edit]

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

Article about a pornography website, with little evidence of significant reliable secondary coverage about it. It was subject to an AfD in 2006, and kept based on its Alexa internet ranking. I don't believe the current Wikipedia notability criteria consider this to be a sufficient reason any longer (and we all know what the popular internet searches are for these days, don't we?!). Popularity doesn't translate into notability. Fails current Wikipedia notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Granted the article needs expansion, but we all know this is subject to available sources. I will see what I can find and invite others to do so. I do know (and will work to substantiate this) that the site is unique as its considered a crossover between the artistic nude modeling and the adult entertainment communities/industries. Furthermore, with upwards of 7,000 or more views per month of this article, there is clearly interest in the subject. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is a unique website, then proof is needed. After all, this website is a recent phenomenon so online sources should be easily available (if they exist). It just looks like another pornography subscription site to me! Sionk (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk, at first glance and without any knowledge of the adult industry, I can easily see how a person would think this. But after digging just a bit, there's much more to the site which has spawned a much larger company. So far I've only approached it from the Adult angle, but I need to do searches from a photography perspective as well as a general art angle. By the way, it currently may well look like "another pornography subscription site", but its one of the first and has quite an influence on the development of such sites as well as the rest of the Internet since the Porn industry has been progressive in its technology development especially when it comes to the web. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We stopped keeping articles through assertions of notability sometime around 2006 so unless you found some sources to support your argument you are pretty much 8 years behind. Oh and the stuff you have added isn't RS, thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sourcing. No assertion of notability beyond the ALEXA ranking, which isn't enough to meet GNG standards. Of the nine references, five go to the site itself, two are based on PR material, and two are copies of the same litigation document. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It was the subject of a major cybersquatting dispute with Met-Life. See [82] and [83]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably useful to expand our article on cybersquatting but I'm not seeing a wikipedia article on METART out of this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete unimpressive sourcing that falls short of GNG, Arguments to keep based on assertion and non-RS should be discarded as so 2006. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:WEBCRIT. MET-Art has received several AVN and XBIZ award nominations over the years in addition to an actual win from XBIZ. I have added the awards and nominations to the article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 11:48, 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 redirected by author. Basically, WP:CSD#G7. (non-admin closure) ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reciprocal Quantum Logic[edit]

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

Article created by a user with a clear WP:COI; cites one source, which is a research paper with exactly one citation on GScholar. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the nom: this is a redirect you've nominated. The actual article is at Superconducting logic and that page needs an AfD banner. Unless you meant to nominate the redirect, in which case it should be at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion --Mark viking (talk) 19:21, 21 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. - §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mushtaq Pasha[edit]

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

very low on notablitiy and really no other reference sources Shrikanthv (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as of now, no coverage in reliable sources : fails WP:GNG; directing two non notable films is not a notable achievement: fails WP:ENT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 21 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elements (restaurant)[edit]

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

Not notable, per WP:AUD. Seems to be of only local interest: refs are specialist or local refs, from NJ publications or the NYT but in it's capacity as a local paper. The only exception is the chef being a semi-finalist in a regional chefs contest, but that hardly makes him or the restaurant notable. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per WP:AUD all sources are at least regional. In page citations show coverage from New York Times (covering the NY Region per title), The Star-Ledger (NJ regional newspaper), Wine Spectator both in 2009 and 2010 (national), New Jersey Monthly, and the chef is currently a semi finalist for the James Beard Foundation Award. Passes WP:GNG and WP:AUD.

Note This editor had previously prodded the article which I contested. Valoem ^talk 15:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey is not a region, nor is New York + New Jersey. I don't know which title you are referring to, the title of the NYT review is "Locally Rooted Flavors That Belie Their Setting", and it's covered as the NYT is a local paper as well as a national one. The award is regional, but being one of twenty Mid-Atlantic chefs up for a regional award does not make the restaurant notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage refers to local newspapers which cover only a town or county such as the New Brunswick Patch. I recommend reading Newspaper (local) which will clarify requirements for regional sources. New York + New Jersey is absolutely a region often referred to as the New York metropolitan area. If you disagree please provide a Wikipedia project page citation. Valoem ^talk 15:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD does not define region, but I would say it's much larger than a state, while NJ + NYC is smaller than most states. They're part of the Northeastern United States region for example. I don't think we can agree on this though, I think we need some other opinions.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG and also WP:AUD per coverage in the New York Times for this Princeton, New Jersey restaurant (NYT article). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources as well as recognitions. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:07, 24 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 Transwiki and then delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hookworm vaccine/16187734[edit]

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

Poorly formatted, full of unreferenced claims and opinions (e.g. "... the production of the vaccine at low cost and high yield...", "Finally, it is somewhat ironic to note that..."). I'd suggest starting a fresh article from scratch. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 12:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You do realize that this is a subpage of the hookworm vaccine article and is simply word for word one of the open source references of that article? This line here sort of explains it "When placed here this was an exact copy of "Devaney E (2005) The End of the Line for Hookworm?" If you look at the talk page Talk:Hookworm_vaccine/16187734 you will see further explanation on why it exists.
Currently the WMF has signed contracts with cellphone companies to give free Wikipedia access to 750 million people. This means that all these people can access Wikipedia but cannot access the sources our content is based on. We could host the compatible sources right on Wikipedia and change this. Another benefit is that it could potentially increase the number of people who can edit Wikipedia by 750 million as they would than have sources. By the way the Cochrane collaboration is thinking of licensing some of their content under an open license so that this could occur.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I do notice the article is copied from a CC-BY-SA source, but I don't think it's appropriate to put it here on Wikipedia (or at least on the mainspace, since it's in no shape to become an article), and WikiSource may be a better choice. To get advantage of the free bandwidth, Novusuna's solution may do. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 23:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to talk namespace This is an interesting idea, and I think we should give it a shot, but per WP:Subpages we shouldn't have subpages in the mainspace. It should be fine in the talk namespace, though. Novusuna ^talk 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes talk page space is fine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Why not just move it into User:Jmh649's userspace rather than have a fakearticle on a talk page where the subject page just redirects there? That seems like it would be much simpler. Jinkinson talk to me 17:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a WP:FAKEARTICLE - moving it to his userspace would make it one. In any case, it's basically the content of a source, not an attempt at writing an article. ansh666 05:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is an actual article published in a medical journal under a license compatible with Wikipedia. The goal is to increase peoples access to sources on which our articles are based and hopefully increase the number of people editing Wikipedia. Ideally the copy will eventually go on Wikidata with a copy hosted locally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Wikisource be the right project for that? --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above - seems like a reasonable solution. ansh666 10:41, 30 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 Transwiki to wikiversity. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Classic energy problem in open-channel flow[edit]

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

This is a textbook-like guide to solve an engineering/science problem, and does not fit within the scope of WP (see WP:NOTMANUAL). It might very well fit into another Wikimedia project, e.g. Wikiversity. Crowsnest (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A "how to" article of unencyclopedic nature. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Modify. The introduction section including the basic equation is encyclopedic. The several examples of calculations that follow are not; they belong in a textbook, which Wikipedia is not. I propose keeping the introductory text and delete all sections and their component text from Lowering of sluice gate in an open-channel flow through General comments about the transition from choke flow. Truthanado (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory section is just Bernoulli's principle. Why is it needed to duplicate that? -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I exported it to v:Classic energy problem in open-channel flow. Continue on. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 01:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, which Sidelight12 (talk · contribs) has already done. The material is worthwhile, it's just not what WP is about. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:09, 29 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fnord[edit]

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

A word from fiction that in a Google search has no reliable sources that I could find. Could be a redirect to The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Article is close to a hoax or practical joke. Principal sources on Google seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia and books that are compilations of Wikipedia articles. It is perhaps appropriate that something almost without meaning has no sources but that doesn't mean we should have an article on it. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There are sources to be found such as 2011: Trendspotting for the Next Decade. The worst case would be merger into another page such as The Illuminatus! Trilogy or subliminal message. Per our editing policy, this is not done by deletion. Andrew (talk) 19:16, 21 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, → Call me Hahc21 00:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This entry allowed me to discover exactly what "fnord" was when I encountered it during work - thus doing exactly what wikipedia was intended to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.246.222 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you describe where you encountered it please as there seem to be almost no sources for its use in the real world. In fact the most important source seems to be Wikipedia itself which is, I am sure, contrary to some policy or other that we have. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For another example of a source which corroborates the article's content see Anarchy Bridge. Andrew (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That page, which is hardly a RS, says that there was once fnord graffitied on a bridge Andrew. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very amusing and ironic but WP:MADEUP (Wikipedia is not for things made up one day) seems relevant here, which amongst other things says "All articles need to cite reliable sources; if you can't do that because there aren't any sources documenting what you invented, then your content is unverifiable and should not be posted on Wikipedia." Philafrenzy (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems quite reliable and the facts about the bridge are confirmed by the book given as a source above. WP:MADEUP is not relevant because the bridge, the word, &c. were not made up by the editors of the article. The original works which did make these things up are well documented in reliable secondary sources such as Discordianism in the works of Robert Anton Wilson. Andrew (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, discussed in RS (e.g. [84], [85]), even used in fiction ([86]). --cyclopia ^speak! 15:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep neologism that has entered individual notability. Commonly used in allusions, especially in IT. Similar to Grok Foobar, etc- See [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 00:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighting designer[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2007. Nothing but how-to, babbling, OR, and dicdef. If there's an article on this subject, this ain't it. WP:TNT and start over if you have to; otherwise redirect to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: While it may need some trimming and MOS work, there's too much there to just throw it away. I imagine most of the sourcing can be done from the external links. Barring a finding of outright wholesale copyvio, I'd say keep and fix – it's much easier than starting from scratch. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. An easy WP:GNG pass. Source examples include entire books devoted to the topic:

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the article is absolutely terrible; basically just someone's big WP:OR essay. Probably only the lede and a few lines here and there are actually about relevant things that could be sourced. That said, the topic is clearly notable - lighting design is a notable part of theatre, television, movie and event production (though this only seems to deal with stage/theatre). I'd be comfortable with a WP:TNT deletion (as suggested) provided we had someone willing to commit to a re-write. I do think the topic should be covered on WP and it would be a shame to see it red-linked. Stalwart111 11:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article needs a rewrite, but I'm not entirely sure that we need to blow it up and start over. That's a bit of a gamble that somebody will come along and write a new article; if nobody does, we're left with red links. Novusuna ^talk 16:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:far from beibg a satisfactory article, but for all that it is a reasonable account of what a lighting designer does & how they go about it. The subject itself is clearly notable.TheLongTone (talk) 21:38, 28 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. SmartSE (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen McCarthy (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG.
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:51, 21 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. No support for an outright delete, and about 50/50 on keep vs. merging to either of a couple different targets. Looking at Polish_cuisine (the more likely merge target), it seems like virtually all dishes listed there also have their own articles, so I guess it makes sense this should too. Damn, now I'm hungry; everything in that article looks so good. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plums in chocolate[edit]

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

While I can confirm that this is a real type of candy, I cannot find anything to justify keeping this article on grounds of Wikipedia:Notability. References in the article, and on the Internet, confirm this food exists - but they mention it either in passing, as an advertisement, or as a recipe. I don't think that's enough for us to keep this. PS. Ping User:Northamerica1000. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polish cuisine and include in List of Polish desserts. Like the nominator, I can't find anything by way of significant coverage enough to justify a stand-alone article. Stalwart111 09:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Polish cuisine~~. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck in light of more sources found. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polish_cuisine#Desserts_.26_sweets. While of the opinion that śliwka nałęczowska have been the most delicious sweets ever tasted (I thought made in Kraśnik rather than Lublin but it was a long time ago), I don't see sources to support a standalone article. AllyD (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep why should this be merged? It is a high notable subject. A very popular and distinctive polish dessert. See Chocolate covered cherry for example. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Candleabracadabra: I searched for sources in Google Books and in news searches, but only found passing mentions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many Polish books are there on Google BOoks? It's discussed here on this blog. How is the subject treated on Polish Wikipedia? There seem to be several notable confectioners who produce this item. It should be covered in some way more than just a mention in the cuisine article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found sources on Google Books here. Substituting prune for plum seems to do the trick and the fruit does in fact seem to be dried. Even in English it is noted as a significant and traditional Polish dessert. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) The topic is not discussed on Polish wikipedia. 2) Blogs are rarely reliable. 3) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, and I am afraid all you achieved is to make me prod the Chocolate covered cherry as clearly failing WP:N (one blog reference...) 4) I am not seeing any good sources even when searching for prunes; at best I see one which mentions this type of candy in Poland in a passing note. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge to the newly created Chocolate-covered fruit article might be worth considering. I can't see any case for deletion of a significant subject noted in numerous sources as being significant and traditional . Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that this topic would have some notability, but please, add some good references to it. Otherwise per WP:V we will have to nominate it for deletion, too (and I think it would be a shame, as I said, I think that more general topic may be notable, and it would be a good place to merge this and some other related articles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Candleabracadabra, mentioned sources which pass WP:GNG, here are some more sources BBC and NPR. There are more sources, but those two reliable, notable sources. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:GNG this is a keep. I would also like to note the blatant disregarded of WP:PRESERVE by Piotrus when he tagged Chocolate covered cherry. To clarify WP:N does not fail when the article is only cited by one source. It fails if you are unable to find more. Please be more careful next time. Valoem ^talk 16:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked about whether recipe sites like this are notable at WT:FOOD at WP:RSN. I'll say again that existence of few sites with recipes doesn't seem to justify WP:GNG/WP:PRODUCT for me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - if there's not enough sources to take this past the stub stage, it shouldn't be a standalone article (per WP:STUB) Ibadibam (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added citations from NPR and New York Times to merit standalone article. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:09, 30 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. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 18:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Costello[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This person does not have sustained or sufficient public notability or published work to be considered a figure of encyclopedic standards. Previous deletion nominations, beginning from 2008, support this contention. The page references an upcoming work in the year 2008 which, as of 2014, has not seen publication. Either the page should be annotated with more current sources, specifically speaking to the subject's present status in public knowledge, or it should be deleted. This writer, with a single publication, still does not meet WP:BIO despite additional secondary, if not significantly dated, sources.

Comment I fixed and completed the nom for IP 50.158.158.251. ₆an⁶sh₆ 04:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Limited notability in the Chicago area, none outside of it. His second book is due for the fall of 2014 and as with his first book, is published by a small, non notable publisher. Part time faculty at a local Chicago college. Unfortunately, the first AfD kept the article on what proved to be an errant notion that this guy would produce more literature. Safiel (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Safiel. Regional notability, most of it based on offline sources we have to AGF. And this has not changed since 2008? At best, userfy as a case of WP:UPANDCOMING/WP:TOOSOON. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP of author and drummer is of only local interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 21 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. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 18:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Police Football Academy[edit]

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

PROD contested as this page COULD meet GNG... however, COULD, is not enough. It needs to pass GNG or NFOOTY to remain and so far I don't believe it does. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a huge misrepresentation of what the Prod removal comment was. Why the blatant misrepresentation? Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NFOOTY failure as no evidence of national competition participation. Not sure there is really much coverage. One of the sources is dead and the other is more about a coach at the academy rather than the academy itself. Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - there's significant media references to this [93] [94] [95] in major Indian papers. That said, shouldn't it be a redirect to a mention at either Kerala Police (football club) or Kerala Police Academy? Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG failure JMHamo (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've demonstrated by [96] [97] [98] that WP:GNG is met. If you believe otherwise, you need to demonstrate why [99] [100] [101] don't let article meet WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I... I am not sure you fully understand GNG mate. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mate? ... I'm not your spouse. Not that there's anything wrong with that ... but I think you've mistaken me for someone else. :)

Seriously though, how doesn't it meet WP:GNG? It's significant coverage, addressing the topic directly and in detail. It's certainly reliable (with multiple sources saying similar). It's more than enough to mention on either the pages Kerala Police (football club) or Kerala Police Academy and then this should be a redirect. Nfitz (talk) 02:55, 22 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/withdraw at the request of the nominator. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 07:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Patel[edit]

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

~~unelected candidates are not notable, and the references are just a name on a list., or press releases DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn References have now been added to show that he was elected, and, of course, he therefore is notable. I;d close it myself , but my script isn;t working. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a few more references to show that he had won the 2008 Madhya Pradesh legislative assembly elections. I think these references will be enough to prove that he is notable.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN as a former elected member of the state legislature of Madhya Pradesh, which has a population of over 72 million people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 21 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Wajid Ali Chaudhary[edit]

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

unelected candidates are not notable, and the references are just a name on a list., or press releases DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People do not gain notability until winning, unless they can pass indepth coverage rules, which this person does not at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 22 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. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 18:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Gone Bad[edit]

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

Non-notable DVD boxset. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete The phrase "Girls Gone Bad" offered in the AFD findsources search parameter gives far too many false positives, so refining the search gives somewhat better results... but as notable as many of the single films might be, the collection AS a collection does not have independent notability AS a collection.... but might be mentioned and sourced in the separate film articles. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JellyRoll (producer)[edit]

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

The subject appears to clearly fail WP:MUSICBIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 02:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having raised this article in a different AFD, I had considered nominating it myself but got caught up saving the other one. So thank you STATic. An interesting one because we are dealing with another individual who uses the same stage name at that AFD. Most of the google search results relate to the other individual (including reliable sources) while the top result (Wikipedia's article) was about this fellow. Always rings alarm bells. This person is, are far as I can tell, not notable as far as our guidelines are concerned. "Working closely with" is not enough for notability. Stalwart111 07:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would say same as Stalwart. --Lighthouse01 (talk) 15:28, 22 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bundaberg Christian College[edit]

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

Inncorrect/False Information Thingv2 (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per established precedent described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, we almost always keep articles about secondary schools unless a hoax is involved. The article has reliable, independent sources. Any incorrect information (what specifically do you mean?) should be corrected by normal editing, not deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per precedent. I agree with Cullen. -- Alarics (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary schools are kept by long-standing precedent and consensus. No specific reasons for deletion given by nominator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen. Nom does not provide any valid deletion criteria. AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and the article talk page provides no indication of content problems. Also, the nom appears to be an SPA. -- 101.117.9.24 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- since it teaches to year 12, it is a High School, which we normnally keep. However, it is a mere stub and needs to be taggged as such, Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't agree at all with the reasoning that high schools should always be kept by virtue of being high schools. It will usually be the case that high schools will have the necessary secondary coverage to meet the WP:GNG, but not always, and the sources should be found first. With that said, this school's policy of being one of the last schools in Queensland where beating children was acceptable seems to have gotten it the required coverage, so the article should be kept. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent that secondary schools of confirmed existence are presumed to be notable. There are good reasons for this precedent which I support... Carrite (talk) 05:13, 24 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. The decision of whether or not to merge this article should continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 18:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simferopol incident[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to the BBC article cited for the creation of this article, None of the accounts can be independently confirmed. Wikipedia is not a place for unconfirmed rumors and hearsay Cmoibenlepro (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally hundreds of articles from every single news web about this article, HUNDREDS. Its not a bunch of rumors, there hard facts. Its a fact that troops stormed the base, its a fact that two soldiers died, its a fact that the base was taken, what more do you want. In almost every conflict both sides have different perceptions of what happened!!! Common logic!! EK728 0:6:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep; happened, it's real. -221.186.242.37 (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is full of rumors, and it's roughly violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I see an attempt to spread someone's point of view to others. Do you want Wikipedia become a part of information war between stakeholders? I think this article should be deleted or rewrite it to neutral. --Melee (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

trying to keep it neutral, it is now being investigated by both sidesRonaldDuncan (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This incident was not confirmed by reliable sources, and was not confirmed independently. Thus a good reason for deletion. Also, even if the event was real, it is not notable enough to have its own article. Not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper Canadianking123 (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally it may be a hoax. It appears that there were not even military combat between Ukrainian and Russian soldiers. A member of Right-Sector was arrested for these homicides. I still think that this article should be deleted, as there no independent confirmation of the events. And as Canadianking123 said, it is not notable enough (given the mystery around), these are rumors. - Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They just had the funeral today, and both sides agree that the 2 people were killed the events that resulted in their death are disputed and under investigation, which is the subject of the articleRonaldDuncan (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD is not cleanup This event unquestionably took place, and is part of an important political crisis. Yes, it needs to reviewed for accuracy and NPOV, but it should not be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How could it be an important event if we are not even sure it happened? It could be only a murder. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And WWII was a mere incident of simple mass murder? N-Korean atrocities are not sufficiently documented, etc.? ~ Pietadè (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides agree that 2 named people were killed, and 2 people were injuredRonaldDuncan (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, i.e., Keep ~ Pietadè (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - information continues to come out there are now at least 3 view points, initial reaction from both sides press and the Crimean InvestigationRonaldDuncan (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - On the article's talk page there is a merge discussion. I am against merger, and that looks like the consensus, but it is a duplication of the debate here, there are also 4 headings contested deletion where people (myself included) did not figure out that here was the place for the deletion discusssion and these are clearly votes to keep RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no question that the attack occurred as its been covered by multiple reliable media sources. Also, when the BBC claims that the accounts can't be individually confirmed, that just means accounts about what happened during the midst of the attack came from individuals, not an extensive government investigation (and the article does a good job of highlighting this). What actually occurred chronologically during the attack may be open to dispute, but this does not mean the article is inherently non-notable.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this incident broke a peace truce between the Ukrainian and the Russian military and should be investigated closer. Apparently the Crimean self-defense are simply Russian mercenaries and some of them veterans of Chechen wars. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty notable incident with plenty of coverage, first casualties of the Crimean crisis Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were casualties before that. So this article is not very notable.

Keep or Merge as per above arguments. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete This article is untrustworthy. It should be merged into 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and should only occupy a maximum of three paragraphs. This seems to be an article written entirely from speculation and people who have no idea exactly what happened. Maybe when more truthful information is revealed. -- Kndimov (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Canadianking123 LokiiT (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are now extensive reports of the joint funerals and that both sides are investigating. The article is being updated to reflect the additional informationRonaldDuncan (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: It has multiple accounts. Quality can be improved, but there are appear to be a good 10,000 articles on this.--Martin Berka (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable incident. --Nug (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if the facts are muddied or the event did not occur, it seems to have significant coverage in reliable sources. That's the notability threshold for inclusion. POV issues can be handled editorially. Recentism should be the main concern and covering this in its own article handles that better than bloating Simferopol. —Ost (talk) 19:44, 27 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. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 18:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channels Worldwide[edit]

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

Delete or Merge It looks like a hoax and there are no references, all just original research! Definitely delete or incorporate the information into Disney Channel WooHoo! • Talk to me! 02:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a hoax at all; pretty much the go-to page for any Disney Channel networks internationally that would be basically 'Disney Channel (Country) airs the network's American and British shows with local dubbing/subtitling and little to no deviation' so better to redirect there, and there are sources in the article. False entries are easily removed through common vandalism patrolling. Nate • (chatter) 02:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Not a hoax and referenced, although it could use more. This article is a list of Disney companies across the globe and is linked to by most of its parent articles. A merge of this page into one or more of those would make them huge, unwieldy, and near-unnavigable. — Wylie pedia 14:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I'm sure it no hoax. Spshu Stinks (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu Stinks is a sockpuppet, and has been blocked indefintiely. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ain't no hoax and it is notable, bro. The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 10:23, 28 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 deleted by User:Shirt58 per CSD A1, "Not enough context to identify article's subject ". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voteformud[edit]

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

BollyJeff | talk 01:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Vandalism, should be speedy deleted (G3) Wikipedia:Speedy_deletion#G3._Pure_vandalism_and_blatant_hoaxes WooHoo! • Talk to me! 02:36, 21 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 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JellyRoll[edit]

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

Article is about a musician doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion - The page JellyRoll DOES meet the WP:MUSICBIO standard. The artist has had 3 albums appear on several nationwide charts. In the article WP:MUSICBIO number 2 says "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Clearly it does not need to be deleted. Maybe the wording of the article, or the format is not correct, but that does not mean it should be deleted. Kcwalker93
Comment - I'm not ready to call this one way or the other just yet. The difficulty is that we already have an article for JellyRoll (producer), a rap music producer. Looking for sources becomes difficult, then, and even Google's "auto profile" results include images of both JellyRolls and confuse the two. The reality is that quite a few of his albums seem notable enough to have been included. Now that's not an indication of much at all but I'd be inclined to delete the album articles first (from which he can draw notability) rather than the BLP (given the albums can't inherit notability from him). There is coverage out there - like this - it's probably a question of whether any of it is reliable. Stalwart111 02:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks you for reviewing this article. The reason I decided to make the article is because he is one of my favorite rappers and i can relate to a lot of his lyrics. I do understand that alone does not mean it should have its own article, but he has 2 albums with the rapper Haystak, which have both been on the billboard charts, one with the rapper Lil Wyte which has also been on the billboard charts, and finally one Year Round, as a group with Lil Wyte and BPZ which was on the billboard charts and was released by a major label, Hypnotize Minds. I am aware that there is another JellyRoll who is a west coast producer, i have actually listened to his music he has done with Snoop Dogg and Xzibit. Maybe putting the word "Rapper" next to his name, the same way the other has the word "producer" next to his name. Also he has had coverage about him using waffle house on his mixtape. Not only on the internet but on tv as well. Thanks again and i hope we can keep his article up. Kcwalker93
Comment - If the article on Gawker does not seem reliable maybe this one does [102]. Kcwalker93
Keep — The subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. He has released an album that has charted on multiple Billboard charts [103] and has received significant coverage in reliable sources including; The Source, HipHopDX, Daily Mail, XXL, Gawker, HipHopWired, and The Hype. STATic message me! 03:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've spent some time cleaning the article up, removing (good faith) puffery and adding sources, including some of those provided by STATic. Having found a few more sources myself (including one from New York magazine) I'm now convinced the subject passes WP:GNG. Stalwart111 04:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 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. While conflicting sources make this a difficult situation, consensus seems relatively strong that this place is no longer referred to as Newtown, if it ever was at all. Feel free to redirect this article to an appropriate target, if desired. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 18:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newtown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

There is actually no such place called "Newtown" located in Upper Macungie Township. I came across this article by mistake while adding updated maps of Lehigh County. I've gone through great lengths to try to verify the existence of this place. I went to the Township municipality office and they confirmed there simply no such place. I think the mistake stems from the confusion that on rare occasions some people say "newtown" when they talk about Newtown Road, Breinigsville, PA and the neighborhood around it.

Additionally, the article mentions Clover Hill Winery; however Clover Hill is actually in Breinigsville (great place btw), even the reference itself clearly say "9850 Newtown Road, Breinigsville, PA 18031".

The statement "It uses the Breinigsville zip code of 18031." is simply wrong; IT IS Breinigsville! note that the reference used has no mention of Newtown at all.

Finally, the GPS coordinate 40°33′02″N 75°39′39″W / 40.550556°N 75.660833°W / 40.550556; -75.660833 used in the article are of Newtown Road! in Breinigsville. CyberXRef^☎ 22:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CyberXRef^☎ 22:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Newton has a record in the Geographic Names Information System, so it is a verified populated place. I checked the U.S. Census Bureau's map of Breinigsville, and the area marked as Newtown isn't actually part of their definition of Breinigsville. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the area is populated, it's just not called Newtown; it's part of Breinigsville. I can't find THIS Newtown on census.gov, where do you see it? There is Newtown road in Breinigsville; I see Newtown Grant, Pennsylvania and Newtown CDP; but they are not this Newtown.

There is a problem with the USGS page (which was published 35 years ago BTW), the coordinates given (40.5506512, -75.6607450). The coordinates are the crossing of Schantz Road (3012) and Newtown Road which is in Breinigsville. Approximate 200 yards from that GPS location (on Schantz rd) is Grim's Greenhouse of Breinigsville ([104]); 20 feet from that GP coordinates is Clover Hill Vineyards & Winery which I already stated above is on Newtown ROAD in Breinigsville. (Here is a street view).

US Census:

Place within State

Economic Place

County Subdivision

Newtown town, Fairfield County, Connecticut
Newtown township, Livingston County, Illinois
Newtown village, Hamilton County, Ohio
Newtown borough, Bucks County, Pennsylvania
Newtown township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania
Newtown township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania
Newtown district, King and Queen County, Virginia

5-Digit ZIP Code

ZIP 06470 (Newtown, CT)
ZIP 18940 (Newtown, PA)
ZIP 19073 (Newtown Square, PA)
ZIP 23126 (Newtown, VA)
ZIP 25686 (Newtown, WV)
ZIP 47969 (Newtown, IN)
ZIP 64667 (Newtown, MO)

No "Newtown, Lehigh County" .. --CyberXRef^☎ 21:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is A Zillow Map of all the properties around the USGS "Newtown" coordinates. Please note there is: 1) no mention of "Newtown", and 2) only mention of Breinigsville. --CyberXRef^☎ 21:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TheCatalyst31-populated places are considered to be notable. The article should edited using the information that The Catalyst31 had listed.-thank you-RFD (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read ANYTHING I've said? Of course the area is populated... It's just not called Newtown. It's just a neighborhood in Breinigsville. This is so ridiculous, you trying to keep a non-existent place. --CyberXRef^☎ 21:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It's marked on USGS topo maps (see here), but since we're finding independent information (i.e. unrelated to GNIS) that contradicts GNIS, it looks like the USGS has made a mistake. GNIS is normally good enough for an article, but when the subject doesn't exist except in their minds, we shouldn't have an article. The only reason I'm asking to keep the title as a redirect, rather than outright deleting it, is that something in GNIS is a likely search target. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verification the place actually exists. Also the GNIS is not always reliable. The article as written just seems to promote the winery.

~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This place simply doesn't exist. Nobody speaks of it, so it probably does not exist, unless there is a pact to make this a secret town that no outsiders will ever know of. I seriously doubt that Newtown exists, and after reviewing the information, have come to the conclusion to delete the article. 123chess456 (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist and email USGS. Issues reported to gnis_manager@usgs.gov, such as a previous error at the article on Peak Eight, have been resolved by the USGS in AfD-like time frames. There's no reason to not make use of the opportunity to not only improve our encyclopedia, but also, as a side-effect, help the USGS improve their own. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Decker:: I actually tried contacting them last week but no reply so hopefully you'll get somewhere.

Just to be triple-sure I've also taken the time to dig deeper. I found my father's old bicentennial souvenir book which talks about the entire history of Upper Macungie (including a bunch of towns that I don't think exist anymore such as Chapman's (used to be on along the Fogelsville Railway (ca. 1944)).). You can look through it again, maybe I missed something. But I don't think there is any mention of Newtown. --CyberXRef^☎ 22:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as its on the USGS map linked to earlier.[105] (Another copy here:[106]), though text of article might be edited to indicate its a no-longer used locality name if that's accurate. Its also on a 2013 PA DOT map here: [107] Its not called Newtown Rd for no reason, I am sure. Oh, Pennsylvania. I ran across a similar issue in writing Old Hannibal recently, I had a devil of a time figuring out where that poor elephant died, but old maps showed a location called "Centerville" in Bedford County, despite not being in use today.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached (and to give the gnis_manager@usgs.gov query time to resolve).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete What looks like a cluster of town buildings on the topo map turns into a farm in aerial photography. There's certainly not a town there now, and unless it all sat on the current site of the winery, I do not see how there ever could have been a town there. This really calls for better evidence than a word on a modern topo map; we're really having to deal with a group of primary sources which disagree with each other, and given the lack of any historical narrative about the name at all, I don't see how we can report that it's a place name which may or may not be valid. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my !vote above, its referenced on more than just one map. Its a deprecated place name, no doubt the origin of "Newtown Road" itself.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, wouldn't it make sense to move that single sentence to the township article? It's literally one sentence and it's unlikely to ever get any bigger. --CyberXRef^☎ 05:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To have an article saying that a place exists, we need higher standards than just that the name appears on a map. Mapmakers occasionally make mistakes, especially if the scale of the map is big enough that they have to rely on surveys, and never actually see the territory being mapped. We should avoid perpetuating those mistakes. A redirect to Upper Macungie Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania would be fine if someone wants to explain in that article about this map error. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:10, 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 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Andrews World Golf Festival[edit]

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

Evidence found indicates that this article was created to promote an event that never actually happened according to a post by new Wikipedian Borismcdoris to the Teahouse. A check of the references shows that all of them refer to a future festival. I found no reliable source to show that the subject actually occurred, much less that it might be notable enough for an article. It fails both general notability guidelines and event notability guidelines. Current list of events in St Andrews does not mention this. This article's author, Wikiworldgolf (talk) (Cont), is an SPA who created and edited only this article. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 00:15, 21 March 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 March 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I suspect an element of a hoax here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a hoax I think. Here is an article from The Scotsman in March 2012 which carries a bullet point at the end, pointing to this event's website. AllyD (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At the least, this article would need surgery to remove promotional material. But in the absence of evidence of substantial coverage, notability is not established. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The event happened, but it merely seems to have been one event. I cannot quite work out why the long list of biographies appears. The whole thin g has the feel of an ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 22 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 Strong (disambiguation). ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 18:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Strong (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only two legitimate entries, and I've hatnoted the list on the museum page. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Strong (disambiguation). bd2412 T 00:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 21 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.