The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. consensus is clear enough. No objection to recreation with better content. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Structured search[edit]

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

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

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

About the best that can be said of this is that it is a longer article than that which was deleted after the previous AfD discussion. But this still more of an essay than an article and provides absolutely no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Eveidence of notability provided at the end of the article Do not delete. Kandreyev (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question to RHaworth How many evidence of notability should be provided? I have put 6 different sources that discussing different aspects of Structured search. Text search technologies web site have a whole section about structured search. Would it be enough evidence? Kandreyev (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev — Kandreyev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Redirect to XML retrieval. Structured search is more commonly called structured retrieval -- see, for instance, the Stanford IR book. The most common kind of structured retrieval these days is XML retrieval and the most common query language for XML retrieval is XQuery. So there is a real topic lurking in here. But this essay-ish article is a WP:COATRACK that seems to promote Mikhail Gilula and his patents rather than describe various approaches to structured retrieval. The best course of action may be to redirect this to XML retrieval until a better article can be written. --Mark viking (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—The resurrected article once again exists to promote a patent; it needs to go. Mark's suggestion is intriguing. I have no objection to a redirect, but I'd like to see a few more cites before I support that option. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: All references to any patents removed so it looks like this argument is not valid anymore. Kandreyev (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. I believe the topic may be notable, but would substantially benefit from having someone independent write it.--Launchballer 08:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If topic is notable why do you want to delete it Launchballer? Please provide your arguments.Kandreyev (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per RHaworth rationale. Although I strongly agree with “Launchballer” per the subject notability but I think its necessary to blow it up and start over Wikicology (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Wikicology (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion by Wikicology admin RHaworth[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not delete: the article is interesting and the subject is more notable than of many other articles - just look at the number of sources. It has nothing to do with XML. If you delete this article - you have to delete many other ones... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.174.124.171 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 28 October 2014‎)— Bourbon7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

* Leave it - Learned a thing or two. Don't see any reason to delete...Pages like this make WIKI better not worse --SearchPro1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SearchPro1 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC) — SearchPro1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Do not delete: Structured Search has nothing to do with XML (of course XML format could be used by concrete implementation but not the only one).Kandreyev (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev — Kandreyev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• To Mark viking: Structured Search focused on search - results could be structured or unstructured. "Structured retrieval" focused on retrieval (means transmission) of search results. Different implementations of Structured Search could use different formats to transmit search results. You could not mix this two terms. Please read Structured Search article :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by kandreyev (talk • contribs) 04:06, 28 October 2014 — Kandreyev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • NOTE: I believe "retrieval" her do not mean transmission, but something more like "find again". The word retrieve is commonly used like this, for example in Information retrieval and Document retrieval. Runarb (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Do not delete Certainly notable. Improvement required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.111.244 (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

* Do not delete- structured search is quite notable, well written, do not see any patents, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.75.121 (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2014‎

* Do not delete: It helps to understand search categories and approaches. It also helps to understand Google's Tech talks on structured search. The term is not perfect and could evolve over time, but for now there seems to be no better word for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.103.8.12 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2014‎

* Do not delete- Structured request makes this approach different from the most other search techniques. It could be a good addition to search engines concentrated on the structures in search results data.199.16.127.226 (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I'm somewhat concerned at the influx of new accounts and IPs that have posted on this page and/or at the article, so I've opened up an SPI here. To anyone coming in, if you were asked to vote on this AfD, please understand that deletion is not decided on a vote but on the weight of the arguments given. You can only show notability by providing coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS) that specifically mentions the concept of structured search. While I do see that there are some sources on the page, we don't have any links to the books themselves to verify that the specific term "structured search" is covered in the text. A search in the Handbook of Mathematical Logic does not bring up "structured search" and I'm somewhat convinced that most or all of the sources given do not actually specifically cover the article topic. Please be aware that unless the sources specifically cover the specific term/technology, anything else is seen as original research. Not only is OR considered to be inappropriate for Wikipedia in general, but it also cannot show notability. As far as other arguments go, saying that something is useful (WP:ITSUSEFUL), that you particularly like it (WP:ILIKEIT), or that other articles would have to be deleted if this one goes (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) are not considered to be valid arguments for inclusion. You have to back all of this up with reliable sourcing because simply saying that we should keep it will do absolutely nothing- you have to give the RS to show coverage. You could have 100 people come on and say that the article should be kept, but unless they're providing sources and arguing for inclusion in ways that do fall within policy (and all of those arguments require RS), those arguments pretty much mean absolutely nothing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you Tokyogirl79 for providing arguments but your arguments are questionable. For example Handbook of Mathematical Logic was published in 1982 and I am not surprised that college handbook of 1982 does not bring up "structured search". Regarding your suspicion that "the sources given do not actually specifically cover the article topic" I would like to ask - What is your level of expertise in the data search technologies? What is your degree level? --Kandreyev (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev[reply]

• Original research is original research. A source must specifically mention the topic at hand in order to bestow notability, otherwise we have to assume that it's WP:OR. Sources can brush up against the basic ideas of the topic, but unless they explicitly mention the topic we cannot use them to show notability. That's the way it's been on Wikipedia for years now. You might be able to use it to back up the most basic ideas such as "in the 1980s this is what it was like" but you cannot use it to show notability for the current status of structured searches. It just doesn't work that way as far as Wikipedia goes. It may work for a paper on the topic, but showing notability on Wikipedia is not the same thing as backing up ideas in a research paper or journal entry. I can't stress that enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT if there is something to this. (And though Nikolaus Pevsner probably knew several priories, in this context I'm surprised to see "known a priory". Google Books shows several examples of the latter in the most surprising places.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TO JamesBWatson Hi James, In US we believe in a freedom of speech. By blocking somebody's opinion you are hurting basic human right - freedom of speech. I do not see any reasonable arguments in this discussion - emotions only. It looks like somebody wants to re-write this article for a money. Sad. I used to like wikipedia but never donate. I felt bad about it but not anymore. I agree with you Bourbon7 - most of the editors on this page just attack without arguments.Kandreyev (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev[reply]

To A-B-C-Watson: Yes, when you are unable to provide arguments – just attack the people: strike their writings, burn the books and the then the people. You provided me with an excellent story to tell to my students. You also saved me money – I will never donate to wiki again. Have a good day! – Bourbon7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.75.30 (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I'm moving this to the bottom, as all new statements should go below the nominator's AfD argument. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I'm moving this to the bottom for the same reason Tokyogirl79 (all new statements should go below the nominator's AfD argument.)Kandreyev (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: I am striking six comments by unambiguous sockpuppets of Kandreyev. (Two sockpuppet accounts and several IP sockpuppets)> The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that username (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. - Note: An editor has expressed a concern that username (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. - I do not have any puppets. Kandreyev (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev[reply]
• Delete - Not present in multiple independent reliable sources. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My anonymous friend. Why do you think that "Multiagent System Technologies" is unreliable source? Did you read the article? Thousand of scientists and engineers all over the world recognize this publication as a very reliable source. JamesBWatson truly believe that all participants without signature are my sockpuppets. Is't it great? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandreyev (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Just Chilling (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baptistry heater[edit]

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

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

Seriously, this is a heater for water in pools. One day some water heater marketing guy said "Let's name this a Baptistry heater and get a new market with religious institutions" and so the term was coined. The whole thing is an advert and non notable piece of equipment Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Fails WP:N. Search for reliable sources turned up one 1911 reference to an index of Popular Mechanics articles, and all others were either advertisements or narrative accounts of failures, fires, or miscellaneous experiences with cold water in the baptistry. There is also a Book of 56 pages, comprised of articles from "Wikipedia or other free sources online." But not a notable subject under Wikipedia policy. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note a 'good' amount is a direct copy and paste from http://answerparty.com/question/answer/can-a-natural-gas-water-heater-be-changed-to-a-propane-water-heater but this is an insufficient portion to speedy delete as a copyvio. Sufficient salvageable text remains. However, if the eventual consensus is to keep the article the copyvio must be removed if this has not been done already Fiddle Faddle 00:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*It appears to be a backwards copyvio – see e.g. this revision where some of the copied text is near the same but different and developed over time in our article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as blatant WP:Spam. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC) OK, perhaps not entirely blatant but nevertheless the article does not demonstrate Notability either. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I will not go so far as User:Dodger67 goes in describing the article as spam, as it describes competing products in relatively neutral terms. But I see no evidence that the topic itself is truly notable. These are nothing more than water heaters, after all, and the article is more about a market segment than a discrete encyclopedic topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When a page contains multiple trademark symbols ® it automatically trips my "spam alarm". It also contains at least one inline external link to a manufacturer's website. However, in terms of the technology and engineering there is no meaningful difference between heating a baptistry or a hot tub in a brothel. This article is implying that what people use the water for is sufficient reason to confer a distinct notability on the devices used to warm it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Please consider tweaking your finely tuned spam alarm, Dodger67. The trademark symbols are a good indicator but not dispositive. If someone writes an article mentioning three competing brand names neutrally, using trademark symbols improperly, then the article has problems but is not itself spam. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be an advertisement masquerading as an article. Even if an article on this topic could be sustained through reliable sources, this isn't it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which brand name is being advertised here, Fuhghettaboutit? Competing brand names are mentioned in the article, and I do not see one favored over another. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple brands are being advertised, there's nothing in WP:PROMO that restricts the concept to pages that mention only one brand. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose all mentions of brands were removed. The two references given are both to ChurchFurniture affiliated sites (one being labeled as "educational") and have an advertising flavor, and aside from potentially only one Popular Mechanics article written in 1911, there do not appear to be any reliable sources. It is not a notable subject. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand'mere Eugene, I agree with your conclusion that this specific topic is not notable. But suppose we were looking at an article about a notable topic, namely a commercial product? And suppose the article mentioned, in a neutral, well-referenced way, the three leading manufacturers of that type of product, without favoring one over the other? Would it be right to call such content "spam" or "advertising"? I think not. Pepsi-Cola advertisements do not include neutral discussion of Coca-Cola, after all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, I agree that well-referenced mentions of one or more brand names should not raise WP:PROMO hackles, but in point of fact, they often do trigger that reaction for other editors. It's just that the decision hierarchy for me starts with notability, and failing that, the question of whether an article is promotional can be taken off the table. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — On the sole ground of failing WP:N. I can understand why doubts about WP:PROMO arise, but 1) reading its history, I can't exclude that the article creation was just a good-faith tentative of writing a page about a non-notable product, 2) being a non-notable product, the main references that can be easily found are websites created by marketers, 3) the citation of manufacturing companies is something that can be included in an article in some circumstances and, as such, not an issue per se and 4) the perceived PROMO nature is in a debatable gray area, which would consume community resources. That's why I've motivated my vote citing only the notability issue. LowLevel73^(talk) 12:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG, possible also WP:PROMO. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is worthless. There is not a sufficient reason for having it on Wikipedia. I don't even understand it. If anything, we should merge this page into the Water heating page. Anyways, I think I could get all the info i wanted from the Aquarium heater page. BigRift (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Cortes[edit]

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

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

Intresting CV of a young architect, but no demonstrated notability yet. ELEKHH^T 22:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 22:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sadly no evidence of notability. Subject fails WP:GNG. The CV can be published elsewhere but certainly not here. Wikicology (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reason to think this passes WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lesly Joseph[edit]

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

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

Heavily-biased biography whose author has a possible COI. Even if the subject is sufficiently notable, improvement of this article into an acceptable form seems to me to be highly unlikely. —Swpb^talk 22:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 22:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 22:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The subject seems to be a NN missionary in Paris. Being founder-president of what is probably a NN orgaisation cannot make him notable. If CFCC were notable, I would expect it to have its own article, so that I assume it is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. I can't say for sure that the organization isn't notable, but its notability would likely be a prerequisite for the notability of its founder. —Swpb^talk 22:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see how this passes notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The whole article is unsourced claims (youtube vids and deezer are not WP:RS) and WP:OR. No credible claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Colorado Rockies minor league players. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Wheeler (baseball)[edit]

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

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

Semi-notable current minor leaguer, though likely not notable enough for his own article yet. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Has yet to reach major leagues. Alex (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge not finding anything to pass GNG.--Yankees10 22:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Colorado Rockies minor league players page. Spanneraol (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Fails WP:ATH, doesn't meet notability requirements on it's own.--Church ^Talk 20:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Wells[edit]

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

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Has not played in any international tournaments. Alex (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability guidelines have changed since his previous AFD and the Australian League no longer counts.Spanneraol (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Wathan[edit]

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

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. The page lists no sources, just external links to stats sites. Never played, coached or managed at major league level. Nothing in the article indicates notability. Alex (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to John Wathan page, where some info about him can be retained. Spanneraol (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable former minor league player and notability is not inherited....William 17:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Spanneraol. Notability is not inherited but notability is not necessary to redirect to a an article on a notable subject that contains information relevant to this subject. Rlendog (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In conjunction with the need to avoid systematic bias, coverage from such an early date in an official Chinese history satisifes the general notability guideline.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Zhong (Ming dynasty)[edit]

Wang Zhong (Ming dynasty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Orphaned page created for no reason but to oppose a move request (Talk:Wang Zhong (Han dynasty)_, does not indicate the importance or notability of the subject. WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject... trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The only source cited only mentions the subject once, clearly not "significant coverage"; and considering the subject's entire biography was 47 Chinese characters in the primary historical source, it's unlikely that the article could be expanded much either. Timmyshin (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Classical Chinese is lighter on character counts, so 47 characters then could expand to somewhere like 80 contemporary Chinese characters worth of meaning (not going to try though). And History of Ming isn't really a primary source IMO (written in Qing Dynasty). Still WP:SOLDIER #5 (Jingnan Campaign#Battle of Zhengcunba re zhwp) seems not important enough of a role (surrendered to Yan forces and then made marquess). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 04:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comment, the point is that 47 characters is an extremely trivial coverage in a history book like History of Ming. Most of the other dozen biographies on that very page/chapter in History of Ming have hundreds, if not thousands of characters in their biographies, and it doesn't look like any of them has a page on English Wikipedia. (Also, as far as I've seen, non-modern Chinese historical books like History of Ming are usually considered primary sources in English-language history books' bibliography section.) Timmyshin (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • …and it doesn't look like any of them has a page on English Wikipedia. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not valid.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete History of the Ming is 322 volumes long. Everybody and his dog got a bio. So 47 characters is really nothing at all. The book is usually treated as archival material anyway. As far as English-language coverage goes, he is mentioned once in a Yongle bio. This article was created to make a WP:POINT about disambiguation policy, not to serve the reader. Claimsworth (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep History of Ming is not considered a primary source by wikipedia definition. Actually, it's based on numerous historical records, and clearly secondary. Since secondary sources can be used as references, the fact that a book is often uesd as referencing by English books doesn't mean it's primary at all. (See WP:PRIMARY) Having a biography on such a source and being honoured "靖安侯" will definitely get him past WP:ANYBIO. --114.81.255.40 (talk) 07:35, 10 October 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 16:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The coverage in the one source does not seem to meet the minimum to meet the interpretation of "significant" required to pass the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep. A European military figure and nobleman of similar prominence from the same era would have enough coverage for an article, and I wonder if he ought to be considered automatically notable for his title and rank. (Why the article was created isn't an issue as long as it's within policy…) —innotata 16:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid "similar prominence" is purely subjective; he's not prominent at all in my opinion. Don't be fooled by the English word "marquis", it's only a translation/European approximation. Except for imperial princes, Ming dynasty did not have a hereditary aristocracy class quite like Medieval Europe, and just like WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, WP:OSE is also not valid. What should be considered are these facts: this guy was an opportunist who surrendered, along with his superior, to a rebellious usurper of the throne (Zhu Di) when his army approached, and was made a "marquis" later by the usurper-turned-emperor. Prior to the surrender, he was a subordinate under a （州）衛指揮僉事 (translated by Charles Hucker as "assistant commander of a (prefectural) guard"), and during his "tenure" as a "marquis", his highest "real-world" position had been a 都督僉事 (translated by Hucker as "assistant commander-in-chief"), a class 2 rank below "commander-in-chief" 都督 and "vice commander-in-chief" 都督同治 (Hucker, p. 544), both class 1 ranks. Timmyshin (talk) 19:06, 30 October 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, Dennis - 2¢ 21:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for reasons I'll go into below. But first I must say I'd be tempted to vote keep just because of the flaws in the arguments above to delete. As has been stated above, creation of this page is not even remotely pointy, it's a valid response to the RM discussion and should be commended. (This deletion nomination is however arguably pointy, being raised by the nom of the RM.) Now to the positives: The subject does pass the GNG, barely but clearly. Chinese Wikipedia https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BB%B4%E5%9F%BA%E6%96%87%E5%BA%93 has a similar stub (but I assume the Wikisource document(s?) to which it links are the source discussed above). Google web search gives me over a million hits, hard to say (not reading Chinese) how relevant any are but certainly a case to answer, Google books almost five thousand, similarly not easy to tell how relevant and some at least are not, I even had a look at Google images which may be more productive but still time consuming. In conclusion, a good stub which should be given a chance. Andrewa (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cakra Khan[edit]

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

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

effectively unsourced BLP. The Banner talk 10:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 9 October 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 15:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but you didn't use BLP PROD--it would have been gone by now. I'm going to call on Crisco 1492 to either turn it into an FA, delete it, or deal with it otherwise. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • According to some people an external link counts as a source for BLP-PROD. Why, I don't know. The Banner talk 19:51, 1 November 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, Dennis - 2¢ 20:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Coverage is in social media, and sites selling music. I can't find anything that would meet any of the conditions in WP:MUSBIO, and definitely not general notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If somebody wants to bring any of these back to AfD for another look, I suggest they not be bundled like this. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tajiks in Canada[edit]

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

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

All these articles fail WP:GNG, lacking as they do "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The fact that X number of Tajiks etc. live in Canada is relevant, is recorded at immigration to Canada, and can perhaps be noted at ethnic origins of people in Canada. But it's insufficient for a standalone article, due to the lack of in-depth coverage on this topic. The only source supplied is a census form listing 264 (!) ethnic groups. Obviously, a number of those have received attention from reliable sources: Italian Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians, Chinese Canadians, and so forth. That is simply not the case here, and the articles should be deleted, or at best redirected to one of the target articles mentioned above. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Uzbeks in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moldovans in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kazakhs in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep all of the articles listed above.

Uzbeks in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moldovans in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kazakhs in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tatar Canadian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Georgians in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I suspect that the main reason behind the deletion requests for the wikiuser Biruitorul is to delete the article about Moldovans in Canada, since he/she believes that there is no such a thing like Moldovan people (seen to be exclusively ethnic Romanians, which is most likely true but to face the reality there are two nation-states Romania and Moldova), even though these people identified as Moldovans in the 2014 Canadian Census. Why there are two articles for Moldovan Americans and Romanian Americans but not for the Canadian case? Let's keep the article Moldovans in Canada and I hope that the wikiuser Biruitorul could successfully try to develop it instead of deleting it. MaronitePride (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • We're not here to discuss your suspicions - do review WP:AGF for that. We're also not here to ask what about X? We're here to determine whether the topics up for deletion have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Thus far, you have manifestly failed to accomplish that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough sourced info here for a stub. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • There really isn't, Tchaliburton: the only "sourced info" we have is the number of people living in Canada who are of Tajik/Uzbek/Moldovan/Kazakh ethnicity. You can't legitimately base an article - even a stub - on a single number. Yes, those numbers are worth noting at, say, ethnic origins of people in Canada, but as far as standalone articles go - no, we simply don't have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", by any reasonable definition. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • There's enough sourced info here for a stub. Biruitorul, if you want to be helpful please feel free to improve/add to the 5 articles instead of deleting them. I hope that it is a good (friendly) advice to you.

Keep and improve the following articles:

Uzbeks in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moldovans in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kazakhs in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tatar Canadian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Georgians in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MaronitePride (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't mention it the first time, MaronitePride, but please refrain from adding Tatar Canadian and Georgians in Canada to the AfD proposal. I did not nominate those articles, and if you wish to nominate them, you can do so on your own terms.
• Simply repeating what has been said above - "enough sourced info here for a stub" - without accounting for my own rebuttal is not a valid response. The only response I have to that is that you still have not produced evidence that the topics in question have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If you want the articles to survive, you may wish to dig up some of that elusive coverage. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • "I didn't mention it the first time, MaronitePride, but please refrain from adding Tatar Canadian and Georgians in Canada to the AfD proposal." And can I ask you something. And Why not? The two articles (Tatar Canadian and Georgians in Canada) seem to have the same "big problems" as you see in the articles Uzbeks in Canada, Moldovans in Canada, Kazakhs in Canada, Tajiks in Canada. (I am within Wikipedia to contribute not to ask to delete articles, that's why I do not want to delete but to improve/add.) Unfortunately, I cannot read/understand Moldovan/Romanian even though I speak French (since I am Lebanese Christian and I have a good knowledge of Spanish) in order to develop/contribute more for the article Moldovans in Canada. This is my last post here, a place for voting but not forum. Let's the people decide based on their democratic right to vote.

MaronitePride (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An article, even a stub, should have at least one reference to an independent, reliable secondary source. These articles do not. They have only a primary statistical source and a related, not determinatively reliable website. That cannot satisfy WP:GNG. Stubs are created when there is a good verifiable claim to notability or adequate substantive coverage in reliable independent sources, but they (stubs) have not been expanded yet, or they fulfill their function at the stub level. Not having either an independent claim to notability nor substantive independent coverage will eliminate a stub just as well as a full blown article. --Bejnar (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's enough similarly sourced articles and laveled for a stub. Example, Cuban Canadian. If we delete the articles for deletion mentioned above then why we keep the article Cuban Canadian, which only source comes from a census form listing 264 (!) ethnic groups. The same source was used in the articles proposed for deletion: Tajiks in Canada, Uzbeks in Canada, Moldovans in Canada, and Kazakhs in Canada. Yogisenact (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I agree that there may be articles other than four that we are discussing here that would be deleted as a matter of the notability guidelines were they to be put to Afd. However, we are not discussing those. We are discussing these four articles. There is no special safe-haven for stubs. Please apply the guidelines and policy to these articles in your reasoning as to why any of these should be kept or deleted. --Bejnar (talk) 04:11, 8 October 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 15:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. XXN (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all 4 articles. Noseamuseos (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please apply the guidelines and policy to these articles in your reasoning as to why any of these should be kept. Afd decisions are not based on !votes, they are based on reasoning. --Bejnar (talk) 04:27, 22 October 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, 17 October 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, Dennis - 2¢ 20:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The level of citation here is typical of a stub of this sort, and I see no evidence that it couldn't be expanded. No compelling reason to delete. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 21:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZX95, there is, in fact, a pretty basic reason for deletion: none of these topics are notable, as defined by WP:GNG—the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant coverage is not a line on a census report. Significant (or independent) coverage is not a copy off an organization's website (Tajiks). Significant coverage is not a trivial report about a gathering (Uzbeks). Significant coverage is not trivia about a parish church (Moldovans). Significant (or independent) coverage is not a copy off an organization's website (Kazakhs).
  • On the contrary, weeks after these were created, I see no evidence any of these topics have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Can you show any? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there simply aren't enough sources here for a valid article and I see no potential for expansion. Any relevant content can be included at Ethnic origins of people in Canada.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani family names[edit]

List of Pakistani family names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Indiscriminate list without any sources or context. In this way, no useful content for an encyclopaedia The Banner talk 20:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: certainly needs much improvement. Deleting articles needing improvement is counter productive. Tag it appropriately and leave it be for some one to come along and improve it, give it context and format it properly. List does have a basic reference point of context from title and most of it includes existing wikipedia articles that have sources and are in themselves notable which makes it useful encyclopedic content. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please look at the article and you can see that it was already tagged in August 2011 for cleanup and sources. The Banner talk 22:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no deadline to make positive edits. If this was a list of terms not related to each other, that would be something categorized as 'no context'. It can't be deleted for not being notable, so if it is deleted so that some one else can recreate it as a clean copy, the edit history will go to waste along with the collection that is already there albeit requiring work. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that waiting for 38 months and then nominating for deletion is hurrying up proceedings? The Banner talk 00:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, although AFDs sometimes get 'to be deleted' articles quickly improved, it is not the way to get articles improved. What I am saying is, it will get improved when some one shows interest in improving it as it has mostly been updated by less experienced or anonymous editors who don't know about the content guideline and not that no one is improving it. If you want to speed it up, do so yourself. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as part of a conventional set of lists on family names, such as List of surnames in Russia, List of surnames in Ukraine, List of Korean family names, List of common Chinese surnames and more. Sourcing definitely requires improvement but that is not a legit reason to delete a list on a valid and legit subject. Mar4d (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For starters, all these articles are sourced and have more context than this one. The Banner talk 10:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TopGun. What can be fixed by editing must be fixed by editing, per our deletion policy. We have no deadline. That an article is in poor state is not a reason to delete it. --cyclopia^speak! 16:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milciades Olivo[edit]

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

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

Non-notable minor league player: only sourcing is an obituary, that's not enough to satisfy GNG. Wizardman 20:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Playing in the Dominican league and the American minor leagues doesnt qualify for notability. Spanneraol (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any notability here. Yet another article that tries to establish notability through association (his cousin played in the major leagues; he once pitched a good game against a Hall of Famer, etc etc etc) Alex (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 17:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Nevarez[edit]

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

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

Non-notable minor league player. Can't tell if he's still with the Pittsburgh org or not, but it doesn't seem like there's enough out there for a merge to even be worth it. Wizardman 19:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. Not notable.--Yankees10 20:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players. He's listed as "active" on his MiLB.com page. Alex (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the type of player that should be on those minor league pages.--Yankees10 20:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. Alex (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's the opinion of many. Thats why you were told not to re-direct a bunch of 30 year old journeymen a few months ago.--Yankees10 21:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I did it anyway! Fight the power! Alex (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing notable about this individual.Spanneraol (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just one dude's observation about the guy, not even really any reason to keep if you're adamant against it but...Nevarez is a strikeout pitcher (248 Ks in 211.2 innings), so he'll probably stick around a little longer and get a few more chances than the average hurler if past history has any bearing. Alex (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He has received some decent coverage in the past: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] <--cache that might not load, it's a profile on him, [6] Alex (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revaz Getsadze[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally as the article had previously been PROD'ed. The delete rationale remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The very definition of a journeyman footballer in a non-FPL league. Fenix down (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 three articles. Mike V • Talk 02:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opencube Labs[edit]

Opencube Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats) :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sachin N (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suraj Kumar Jana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles form a walled garden of non-notable content. Please see WP:CORP and WP:BIO. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With improved grammar and third party references, these articles should be kept, otherwise, no.DThomsen8 (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: This page (a ref from one of the articles) makes a mere mention of Suraj Kumar Jana and Opencube Labs. Otherwise I can’t find any references in reliable sources. —teb728 t c 06:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All WP:MILL. In India you can find a lot of SSE entrepreneurs. We can't keep articles for all of them. Wikipedia has a notability criteria to have articles for people and organizations. These articles fails them. Athachil (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All As Per Magog the Ogre Fails both WP:CORP and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All Lack of reliable sources, should be deleted. --Obsidi (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 15:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Lansberg[edit]

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

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

Non-notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:MMANOT. There was unreferenced claims to Muay Thai world championships but it was far from clear from where. I suspect it was for International Federation of Muaythai Amateur in which case she still would not meet WP:KICK. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's clear she doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Her kickboxing record also doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria for kickboxers (WP:KICK). Her record is a bit confusing because the article's only source lists her as winning the WMC Nordic professional championship (which isn't enough to show notability) but it also shows that her last muay thai competition was at an amateur European championship. There are no organizations or sources given to support the other claims of winning medals at world championships, but I have to assume they were at amateur events. If sources can be provided to show she actually meets WP:KICK, I will be happy to change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Papaursa's comments that she doesn't meet WP:KICK and she lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This reflects mostly a content dispute among expert editors about how to classify these languages and how to reflect this classification in Wikipedia, but there is no consensus for or against the argument that the classification as presented in this article is original research requiring deletion of the article. I recommend pursuing this further on the content level via a RfC.  Sandstein  10:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amami–Okinawan languages[edit]

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

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

This is a novel and never before discussed division of the Ryukyuan languages that is not supported by the sources used in the article as citations. It is only a vague division on Ethnologue, which in itself is not used as a reliable source for languages. Nanshu has been disrupting Wikipedia to produce this and the other articles in that are linked to in his new definition, and is essentially his own personal research on the topic, and this article thus violates WP:SYN as he is coming up with new conclusions based on the evidence he cites. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article violates WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, and WP:CFORK. This language family is called "Northern Ryūkyūan" in the mainstream, and this "Amami–Okinawan" is a combination of a fringe theory and Nanshu's OR. He created this article as a launch point and precedent for his personal research into the Amami and Kunigami languages (which he's splintered into multiple languages and renamed the latter). This article specifically takes sources that state these languages are in fact "dialects" of Japanese and uses them to reclassify the Ryukyuan languages to better suit his still unstated agenda. Parts of it were also copy-and-pasted to five other articles. Not to mention that the article is written like a thesis paper. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of politics involved in deciding whether or not something is a dialect or a language, with Japanese sources preferring to declare all of these varieties just "dialects" of Japanese, and Western academics calling them "languages" based on the application of normal scholarly criteria for distinguishing the two, such as mutual intelligibility, presence of an unbroken dialect chain etc. [7] You're accusing Nanshu of having made up these distinct languages, and I don't find that confirmed by looking at sources. Those languages are mentioned as such in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics by Oxford University Press, and that's not a fringe publisher. You and Ryulong are accusing Nanshu of having an agenda, and he's accusing you two of having an agenda, but I will note here that on multiple occasions now you and Ryulong have made assertions about what can and cannot be found in reliable sources that were found to be demonstrably false by anyone who actually bothered to look. Andreas JN466 19:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  My "agenda" is to remove these content/POV forks. Nanshu has almost completely ignored my presence in this (except for reverting me a few times), so I don't see where he's accused me of having an agenda, while he goes on rants about how Ryulong is trying to destroy Wikipedia. And also, when have I ever said "what can and cannot be found in reliable sources"? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You say above e.g. that it was Nanshu who has taken the Amami and Kunigami languages and "splintered [them] into multiple languages and renamed the latter", and that's just complete nonsense, as anyone who looks at the sources can see – unless you are alleging that these international scholars are all Nanshu writing under various pseudonyms. Andreas JN466 09:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a valid node in some classifications ([8][9][10][11][12]), and per NPOV policy it's Wikipedia's job to accurately reflect diversity in reliable sources. Andreas JN466 19:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because it's a valid node in some classifications does not mean that Nanshu's massive article that copies shit from other pages means anything. This is "Northern Ryukyuan" everywhere else other than in Nanshu's head. The International Encyclopedia of Linguistics has single sentence entries on everything here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, they are single paragraphs, not single sentences, as far as I recall. There are thousands of languages that are notable enough for Wikipedia. Many of them will not even be mentioned in a high-level work like the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. I see no reason why a Wikipedia user who has seen the term mentioned should draw a blank when searching for it on Wikipedia. Andreas JN466 09:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Searching "Northern Ryukyuan languages" resulted in 7,030 web hits and 0 book hits, while "Amami-Okinawan languages" resulted in 93 web hits and 2 book hits.. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Search for "Amami-Okinawan", without the "languages", and you'll find more, in very high-quality and recent sources, both in Google Books and in Google Scholar. And that's without looking for sources in Japanese and other languages. Andreas JN466 09:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  But how many of those sources regard the languages and not the islands and their nebulous cultures?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Whether the group of languages in question is to be called Amami–Okinawan or Northern Ryukyuan has nothing to do with the deletion discussion. It only affects the article's title (i.e., possible renaming). Ryulong and Sturmgewehr88 have repeatedly made groundless accusations against me regarding WP:NOR and other points. They refuse to face the reality. I have cited at least 21 unique sources to write these articles. They have never demonstrated with reliable sources that they represent a "fringe theory." They failed to explained why they can be removed completely. By removing what they dislike, they challenge our WP:NPOV policy. --Nanshu (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That's because none of the sources (other than a vague reference in the Ethnologue) you've brought up seem to point to this being a language grouping and it's just your synthesis of the sources that has created it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep If it's a valid node, it's a suitable article. The remainder of the problem contains what the content should bem and that;s for discussion elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the sources provided clearly demonstrate that the existence of this language family is agreed to by at least a portion of academia. Thus, it makes sense to have an article on the topic, so long as that article makes it clear that the topic is still in some dispute and that there is no consensus view amongst experts. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:22, 24 October 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong asked above, "but how many of those sources [mentioning Amami-Okinawan] regard the languages and not the islands and their nebulous cultures?" Among English-language sources we have:

• Harry van der Hulst; Rob Goedemans; Ellen van Zanten (2010). A Survey of Word Accentual Patterns in the Languages of the World. Walter de Gruyter. p. 547. ISBN 978-3-11-019631-3.
• E. K. Brown; R. E. Asher; J. M. Y. Simpson (2006). Encyclopedia of language & linguistics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-08-044299-0.
• Shigeki Kaji (2001). Proceedings of the Symposium Cross-Linguistic Studies of Tonal Phenomena, Tonogenesis, Japanese Accentology, and Other Topics: December 12-14, 2000, Gakushi Kaikan, Tokyo (University Alumni Association Hall). Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. ISBN 978-4-87297-794-3.
• Barbara F. Grimes; Joseph Evans Grimes; Summer Institute of Linguistics (2000). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. SIL International. ISBN 978-1-55671-103-9.
• Ren Wu et al. (2008). Language Identification for Generating GIS Data Used in Mapping Linguistic Features of the World's Languages, ITC-CSCC: 2008, 2008.7, 155-156
• N. Takara (2012). The Tonology of Itoman Okinawan: A Phonological Analysis of the Nominal Tone System
• UCHIMA Chokujin (2004). On the Obstruentization of Old Japanese /w/ : Focusing on the Miyako and Yaeyama Dialects. Kokugogaku: Studies in the Japanese language 55(2), 32-44, 2004-04-01 Andreas JN466 12:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason that this information cannot be adequately incorporated into Ryukyuan languages. There's no real point in keeping it separate when the "Sakishima languages" only number 3.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 15:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Bedorf[edit]

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

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

Non-notable MMA fighter, does not meet WP:MMANOT with no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As an MMA fighter, he has no top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA. As far as his grappling goes, he did compete at the 2009 ADCC tournament where he lost his only match. Merely competing at tournaments is not enough to prove notability. According to the IBJJF website, his appearance at the 2008 European BJJ championships was as a brown belt and there was only 1 other competitor in his class--so there's nothing in his grappling record to show he meets WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here goes Wikipedia again, being a failure to live up to its name as the "Free Encyclopedia". I didn't know notability actually mattered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.58.247 (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Live and learn, dear anon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Userfy if the creator requests so. Sports-cruft, no notable sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 15:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women for Palestine[edit]

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

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

Not a notable organization. Sources do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This basically should be a strong quick delete for a very promotional type article of a group with no WP worthy sources given. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, sourcing to attest notability doesn't seem to exist –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this article should be removed. As previously mentioned, there are no indications that this is a notable organization. Please delete. [[THEO!|User:Tjraptis20]] (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Abd Allah ibn Abbas. w/o prejudice to the underlying notability of the subject j⚛e decker^talk 04:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Abd Allah ibn al'-Abbas[edit]

'Abd Allah ibn al'-Abbas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Double article. Trying to help the original nominator. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have two of them! :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a double article. (Also delete the double of this AfD please. :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and maybe merge the "otherwise called (Ibn Abbas; Al-Hibr; Al-Bahr; The Doctor; The Sea)" part. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am slightly confused, is there a second article on this person with a different title?speednat (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a duplicate listing here. Removed one. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be merged with Abd Allah ibn Abbas, I have copied the only missing info over so now Delete speednat (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect rather than delete: I gather that the merger has already been done. However some one who knows ought to tell us which is the better transliteration of the Arabic. Whichever it is the article should be there and the other a redirect to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Abd Allah ibn Abbas. Could've probably just be speedied as duplicating existing article? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This is the English wikipedia, so we generally favor article titles with as few non-English characters as possible.02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker^talk 15:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Boykoff[edit]

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

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

Fails notability as outlined at WP:ACADEMIC. Does not satisfy any of the criteria. Associate prof, wrote some books (might very well be good ones); lots of those out there. Reads a bit like self-promo.  Volunteer Marek  07:30, 25 October 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 October 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:GNG with coverage such as Portland Tribune and Milwaukee Journal. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 20:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per GiantSnowman passes WP:GNG and also this Guardian.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per GS, seems to be significantly more than just an academic. Might fail WP:ACADEMIC, but plenty out there about the rest of his life to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus. Intrinsically POV title and unnecessary POV split. DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demonization of Vladimir Putin[edit]

Demonization of Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Over the top highly POV piece of non-encyclopedic original research which relies on synthesis of sources. Also a WP:COATRACK created to make a political WP:POINT as part of some propaganda war. Yes, there are some (dubious) sources which talk about "demonization of Putin" in passing (some blogs and opinion pieces) but there are no sources dedicated to that as a topic. Frankly, the article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Although, it's so crazy it's actually sort of funny.  Volunteer Marek  06:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am creator of this article. It should be kept because:
  • Topic: This topic is notable. It is covered by multiple reliable sources. Many of them extensively discussing the topic.
  • Blog: Yes, one of them is blog of Stephen F. Cohen, an american scholar who is specialized at Russian studies and professor of university in New York. His blog is published on the Reuters website and extensively republished by plenty of other very reliable publishers.
  • Issues?: If there are some issues with this article, they are far from being that serious as emphasized by nominator for deletion who presented no evidence for very serious (POINT, COATRACK, OR, SYNTH...) accusations which I think are not justified at all. No article at wikipedia is perfect. If they are to be deleted because of that, wikipedia would not exist. Any issues this article might have should be resolved without deletion of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:50, 25 October 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 October 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(First part copied from article talk) The article relies on primary source editorials and cherry picked opinion pieces. Thus it collects, and synthesizes primary sources to arrive at a conclusion. Look, just because someone somewhere said that someone else somewhere "demonized" Putin does not a source, or an article make. Especially if we're talking highly politized sources. Every politician is critized by someone. And that someone is critized by someone else. You could write hundreds of these ridiculous articles: Demonization of Barack Obama, Demonization of George Bush, Demonization of Osama Bin Laden, Demonization of George Soros, Demonization of Jimbo Wales, Demonization of Mother Theresa, Demonization of Slobodan Milosevic (oh wait...), Demonization of Hitler, Demonization of Stalin, Demonization of Pol Pot, Demonization of Satan, Demonization of Santa Claus, Demonizations of Wikipedia, Demonizations of Hollywood, ... ...... I am sure there is some primary sources some where for all of these. Volunteer Marek  07:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that majority of your comment is appeal to ridicule fallacy which I see as sign of absence of real arguments for your point of view here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to both mock something and make a serious point at the same time. Volunteer Marek  18:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge, or send to the Gulag. G10, tagged as such. Vlad is not pleased. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: speedy deletion declined. Whether or not it is SYNTH or COATRACK, G10 would only apply if this page served no purpose but to "disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass" Putin, and that is not the case. JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Purge, per WP:TE, POVFORK, OR, UNDUE etc. etc.--Galassi (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a valid encyclopedic topic. Inherently POV. --^Melody _Lavender 11:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Demonizing the enemy. Delete or rename to Putler and rewrite per sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if possible, delete if not to Vladimir Putin's article what can be salvaged with no original research, sourcing, and the like. If this is not possible, delete the article. As Volunteer Marek has stated, you could make an infinite bunch of articles relating to the 'demonization' of something. I'm not even sure an article title change could encompass it but it's a biased title regardless. Tutelary (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not infinite. Only on demonization which meets notablity criteria (covered by multiple reliable sources), like Demonization of United States or Demonization of Vladimir Putin.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that Demonization of US article you just created, probably should be AfD as well. Volunteer Marek  21:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is fun! Demonization of United States is obviously an example of WP:POINT and a POV fork of Anti-Americanism. Now, speaking more seriously, something like Image of Vladimir Putin in press might be a legitimate subject. we have already Public image of Vladimir Putin (per Viriditas below). My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-American propaganda campaign ≠ Anti-American sentiment and stereotypes. There are tons of reliable sources for Demonization of America as propaganda campaign, so its notable topic which deserves its own article. Same as this topic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, changing of your comment after it was already replied like you did here (diff) is not allowed on wikipedia. Please revert yourself. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is perfectly allowed (I strike through part of my previous comment). I did it because I listen arguments by other participants of this discussion. But thank you! I almost fell asleep editing Wikipedia lately. I think you have excellent sense of humor by creating these "demonization" pages. But they belong to Wikipedia:Humor. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No doubt you know you did more than strike trough part of your previous comment with this edit (diff).
• No doubt you also know that your comment about me and my senses are violation of WP:NPA.
• Re humor, if you had good arguments for your position there would be no need for you to violate wikipedia rules and use fallacies in attempt to advance your position.
• I agree with you in one thing. Either all articles about demonization should be deleted or none of them. So its now about Demonizing the enemy, Demonization of United States and Demonization of Vladimir Putin. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, striked through. Sorry, but I do not agree with you in "one thing". Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Moreover, creating several questionable pages on the same subject, and then arguing on the AfD that all of them should therefore be kept is an example of WP:POINT. That is forbidden. My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you avoid to put your money where your mouth is? You stated that articles on demonization are "questionable pages", " an example of WP:POINT and a POV fork " that "belong to Wikipedia:Humor". Why do you mind expanding this AfD to include other article on demonization? I promise I will strike trough my keep !vote and change it into delete as soon as you convince me with arguments based on wikipedia policies. Not fallacies, personal attacks and violations of wikipedia rules. Until now I haven't seen such arguments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do not mind expanding this AfD to include other article on demonization, but this not my responsibility. However, even if other articles on demonization are kept, it does not mean we must keep this article. This is meaning of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article badly needs an English language grammatical makeover, but its concept is well justified. Consider that it includes extremely mainstream observations that this well documented phenomenon seriously hazards world peace. Greater notability is hard to imagine. Because of the repercussions thus explicated, the article deserves independent footing (but serious grammatical attention). Kenfree (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and salt. This is mostly a collection of sources that have almost nothing to do with the article. Pure original research and synthesis based on fringe theories. Dave Dial (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Encyclopedic topic backed by reliable sources. The word "demonization" is the actual word used by sources, so the title is appropriate. USchick (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything useful to Public image of Vladimir Putin and/or an article about Putin conspiracy theories or Russia–United States relations, then delete. Current version is not adequate to keep. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public image ≠ propaganda campaign. Both are notable subjects covered by multiple reliable sources and deserve their own articles. If you found more reliable sources that this propaganda campaign does not exist, it can be clarified in the text of the article, besides sources that already say so. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public image and propaganda are inseparable. They are one and the same. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a personal opinion or is there a source to back up this statement? USchick (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A personal opinion about what? Propaganda "is the key instrument in the construction" of the public image of a leader and the public's perception of that leader and the office held by that leader. (Shawn J. Parry-Giles, 2002). Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just proved they are not "one and same".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Intrinsically POV topic, so it cannot be rescued. There may be a Criticism of Vladimir Putin (say) article that can include some of these sources in a sub-topic, but this is clearly not a valid topic. --cyclopia^speak! 16:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A topic can be notable or not notable. Any notable topic is valid.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not any topic is valid. The topic, as formulated, assumes that the criticism of P. was unfair (meaning the subject was a "victim" of unfair propaganda - "demonization", rather than of their own actions). Therefore, the topic is intrinsically POV, and this page not a valid encyclopedic content. Topic like "public image of ..." would be OK, but we have it already.My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "any topic is valid". Please don't interpret my position. I clearly said "Any notable topic is valid". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is wrong, as WP:GNG states: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not. In this case the topic blatantly violates WP:NPOV. Mind you, I am an inclusionist, I think three times before deeming something not worthy an article. But this is a clear cut case of WP:SOAP. There is info in the article that might be saved, but not under this title, not under this topic. Russophobia is a possible valid target. --cyclopia^speak! 18:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation Cyclopia. I think only people can have point of view. Not topics. How can a "topic blatantly violate WP:NPOV"? Regarding Russophobia point, Putin ≠ Russia per below explanation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try with a silly simple example. If someone made an article titled Cyclopia is the best Wikipedia editor, wouldn't the topic title itself be violating NPOV? --cyclopia^speak! 16:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ≠ title. You first stated that the "topic blatantly violate WP:NPOV", now you point to the title ("wouldn't the topic title itself be violating NPOV?"). Can you please clarify your opinion here and what exactly you think violates NPOV policy, the topic or its title?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are one and the same: the title defines the topic. --cyclopia^speak! 18:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you (also) just proved they are not "one and same", though your "=" proclamation probably pointed to the main point to which somehow this discussion boiled down to. It is = or ≠ position. There are two groups of editors:

1. One group of editors (larger) believe that demonization=public image, criticism, Russophobia.... or that demonization is some kind of taboo "POV topic" so this article should be either deleted or merged into public image, criticism, Russophobia.... articles
2. Another group of editors (smaller for now) think that demonization≠public image, criticism, Russophobia....

I respect opinion of editors belonging to group number 1 but I think nobody presented valid arguments for it. If criticism/russophobia/public image.... would have characteristics of demonization, they would be demonization. Similar to "silly simple example" about grandma and grandpa Mr. Putin recently told. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with User:My very best wishes. Also, this would be more appropriate for a redirect or merge. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) There is no question that Putin is demonized by the Western media, indeed, to a ridiculously hysterical degree. (2) That does not mean that Wikipedia needs this article or that this subject is appropriate for an encyclopedia. My personal view is that an article dealing with "Western anti-Russian propaganda" would be more encyclopedic; the demonization of Putin could be treated there. (3) I think that Antidiskriminator has a point when he says above that "Either all articles about demonization should be deleted or none of them. So its now about Demonizing the enemy, Demonization of United States and Demonization of Vladimir Putin." (4) It is par for the course that of the three "demonization" articles that Antidiskriminator created, only in the case of the Putin article has a deletion discussion been started. This is so even though the subject "Demonization of the United States" duplicates two existing articles, Criticism of the United States government and Anti-Americanism. As far as I know, the Demonization of Putin article doesn't duplicate any existing articles, so a much better case can be made for deleting the Demonization of the US article than deleting the Demonization of Putin article. Yet there is a discussion for deleting the latter, but not for deleting the former. – Herzen (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian equivalent of Anti-Americanism is Russophobia. I was pleased to find that an article about that subject already exists. Russophobia is the product of anti-Russian propaganda, so a separate article about anti-Russian propaganda is not required. In my opinion, material about the demonization of Putin should go in the Russophobia article, not a separate article. – Herzen (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Herzen. I think that your position, similar to position of several other editors who !voted for rename/merge, is based on the (I believe false) premise that demonization is actually (well deserved) "Criticism" or "Russophobia" or "Public image" or "....propaganda".... If criticism/russophobia/public image.... would have characteristics of demonization, they would be demonization. No doubt that numerous scholars and politicians whose works emphasize term demonization know the characteristics and differences between demonization and Criticism, Russophobia, Public image, ... Still, they decided to use word demonization. In case of your proposal Herzen there is additional problem because it is based on misidentification of Putin with Russia. No doubt that Putin ≠ Russia and also there is no doubt there are people who demonize Putin but have nothing against Russia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete – Nothing but a WP:COATRACK, a PoV nonsense article that has no encyclopaedic value. RGloucester — ☎ 19:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Delete, merge content that is reliably sourced (and make it neutrally worded) to the article Public image of Vladimir Putin, where this can be seen as a POVFORK of content that falls within the scope of that article, and delete this article. While negative reliably sourced content can be found of Vladimir Putin, that falls within the public image of the subject, and the title of this article creates POV issues. Therefore, it be best to take what reliable sources are in this article, and use them to improve the target article, and delete this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Public image of Vladimir Putin, add "demonization"-section.--Zoupan 01:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Public Image of Putin. Otherwise we will have a new trend of creating these types of articles, very soon we may have Demonization of Obama, it will be larger too. Noteswork (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what if we may have (larger) article on Demonization of Obama? Is demonization some kind of taboo? If it is, what wikipedia policy says so? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any "Demonization of X" is POV. The wording basically implies that most criticism of X is wrong almost by definition, and part of some conspiracy to ruin X image. Unless this has been proven unequivocally and consensually by historians (e.g. a Demonization of Jews in Nazi Germany could make some sense), we cannot accept such wording for a topic. "Public image of X" or "Criticism of X" are neutral topics, where content about demonization critiques could make sense. But "Demonization of X" is not. --cyclopia^speak! 11:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still expect Noteswork to reply to my questions.
      • Cyclopia, has it "been proven unequivocally and consensually by historians" that Demonization of Putin is POV? Of course not. This kind of argument is not grounded in wikipedia policies nor in common sense. Scholars are rarely able to prove something "unequivocally and consensually", especially when dealing with (modern) human societies. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are turning this upside-down. Calling criticism "demonization" is a POV unless proven otherwise. And yes, it is grounded in WP policy: WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, for a start.--cyclopia^speak! 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. Editors who insist that "demonization=criticism or PI" should prove it. Calling demonization "criticism" is POV "unless proven otherwise". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" and "demonization" are interchangeable. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has it "been proven unequivocally and consensually by historians" that Demonization of Vladimir Putin is actually criticism? No. Unlike Cyclopia I don't insist on scholarly consensus, but editors who !voted for deletion based on demonization=criticism or demonization=PI position should present some kind of proof for their assertion. Otherwise their votes would remain Proof by assertion or Argumentum ad nauseam.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demonization is not even a neutral term. Reliable sources often consider subject to be a "Drama queen", "Drug addict". They aren't accepted. Noteswork (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it is an entirely pov article, full of OR and Synthesis. I've never seen so many "some authors" in one article! Some of the non-"some authors", non-pov content might be placeable into Public image of Vladimir Putin. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No idea which came first, but this is essentially a POV fork of Public image of Vladimir Putin. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In his speeches and his supporters’ ones broadcast through the Russian media, Putin himself demonizes himself by announcing the threat of military forces and nuclear cruise missiles when going in constant search of troubles to Russia in Transnistria in 1990, South Ossetia in 2008, Donbass in 2014, etc. The Western media reflect his policy. Psychiatrick (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Public image of Vladimir Putin. This title is inherently POV, merge together with other comments for a balanced article. --Obsidi (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No other than nominator suggested deletion of the article plus nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Storholmen[edit]

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

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

Doesn't look like a notable author to me. What do the other Wikipedians think? Note: Of course I don't know what kind of an award "Sultprisen" is. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Storholmen has been covered in the Norwegian media [13][14] for winning the Sultprisen (which is an award given by Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, a large Norwegian publisher) as well as English reviews of her poetry [15][16][17]. I think the reviews by The Hindu and The Sunday Guardian shows this figure meets GNG. Altamel (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - NyNorsk Wiki lists other awards given to Storholmen, and as Altamel rightly notes, her appearance in newspaper reviews as well as her prizewinning works are more than sufficient to meet our notability standards.

Ole Vig-prisen 2011

Legat og stipend 2011

Tanums kvinnestipend 2011

Bokhandelens forfatterstipend 2010 Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I withdraw the nom, hoping that someone will spare a few minutes of their Wikitime to add smt from those sources, for example the awards, to this 2-sentence stub. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm adding some refs and bibliog. to the article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker^talk 15:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borderland (AJAM)[edit]

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

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

promo for a recently released movie The Banner talk 10:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 9 October 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 15:56, 17 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Fray. postdlf (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Welsh[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as creator. At the time the article was written, it met the guidelines, but the guidelines have changed. Teemu08 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's a member of a significant American rock band. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see "member of a significant American rock band" in WP:MUSICBIO. Could you please indicate which item it is or how you're interpreting that list? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This member of The Fray doesn't get significant coverage as an individual. There are a couple of interview-the-band-member articles, but that's it. That doesn't constitute individual notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Fray. All database and news hits/interviews are for Welsh's relation to the band and nothing independently biographical. As the musician doesn't have notability independent of the band, WP:MUSICBIO says to redirect, as a useful redirect term. Please ping me if non-English or offline sources are found. czar ♔ 05:27, 25 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Fray as suggested above. I agree. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Fray. postdlf (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Wysocki[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as creator. At the time the article was written, it met the guidelines, but the guidelines have changed. Teemu08 (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's a member of a very popular and significant American musical group. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • I don't see "member of a very popular and significant American musical group" in WP:MUSICBIO. Could you please indicate which item it is or how you're interpreting that list? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlike the Afd for Isaac Slade (who at least gets a little coverage), I can't find much for Ben Wysocki. There are a couple of interview-the-band-member articles, but that's it. That doesn't constitute individual notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Fray. All database and news hits/interviews are for Wysocki's relation to the band and nothing independently biographical. As the musician doesn't have notability independent of the band, WP:MUSICBIO says to redirect, as a useful redirect term. Please ping me if non-English or offline sources are found. czar ♔ 05:27, 25 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Fray per User:Czar. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aztec deities . j⚛e decker^talk 04:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atlacoya[edit]

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

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

no sources for over 10 years. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's really not much turning up on a web search. There's a a tiny bit of stuff on Google Books that doesn't say much beyond that she was their goddess of drought, but I doubt this can ever be expanded beyond the tiny stub it is. Cannolis (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reirect to List of Aztec deities which has much the same content on her. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  10:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank DeMartini[edit]

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

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

There is no independent sources regarding his notability or even of his blog. The sources are all primary sources linking to his films or generic links to the NY Times about his bit parts in films. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 9 October 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 15:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, subject has not received significant coverage in reliable tertiary sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why tertiary? GNG allows secondary sources. James500 (talk) 04:04, 24 October 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect to Mozart and the Whale. Only real hit in several databases (including Long Island newspaper Newsday archives) was this Business Wire news release, so I'm going with no significant coverage. However, his name is a fine redirect term as he has several producer credits on WP. Mozart is the most prominent film in the aforementioned link that can verify this type of producer credit, so redirect there. czar ♔ 04:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be a bit odd? If there's an article with a link to his biography, such as Ninja: Shadow of a Tear, a link to that film doesn't make a lot of sense. It doesn't really fit WP:POFRED. If there was a production section about him or something, maybe, but a link would more confusing than helpful in my view. The red link may in fact be better per WP:REDLINKS. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinking indicates that it should be made in the future, which wouldn't be a good choice since we've just established that there wouldn't be sufficient sourcing. There's not much on DeMartini in Mozart now, but based on the sources I saw, that is where he would be mentioned the most. As for POFRED, it also doesn't appear to be all-inclusive, because it says nothing about the common practice of redirecting individuals to notable works with which they associate. I think the redirect is a better option than deleting the page outright. Not sure where you say Ninja links to his biography czar ♔ 15:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This said, I took another look at those sources to see what I could add fast and it's press release-y and behind a paywall, so not helping anyone. (E.g., "Millennium Films Announces Five-Picture Deal with Producers Frank DeMartini and James Acheson". 2004. Business Wire.) There's also an architect in the NJ tristate area by the same name, which leads to some confusing hits. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect in the future with a substantial mention, which I still think would be preferred, but given that I've already spent another 20 minutes on this and don't have a worthy blurb to add, I think you're right that it's fine to delete for now. czar ♔ 16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BtoB (band). Redirect. Dylanfromthenorth cites correctly. Proof via reliable sources of individual notability not provided. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Minhyuk[edit]

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

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

The subject of this article seems to get most of his notoriety through his band BtoB, not on his own account. If so, that does not warrant a separate article and a redirect to BtoB will be sufficient. The Banner talk 12:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This NOM has mass AfDed several of the individual band members on the same basis. We are dealing with a boy band in Korea, so media habits are not the same. There is a ton of what wikipedia would regard as non-reliable source material about them, Facebook, tumblr, pinterest, blogs that are the kind of new media you would expect around such a group. What I am saying is there is no question about their notability. Normally the members of the boy bands I am familiar with do get their own individual articles but in the haste to delete this one, Minhyuk individually was an actor before joining the band, performing in Living In Chungdamdong, a television show on jTBC. That distinguishes him from just the group's activities and makes him individually notable. Trackinfo (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL, these "mass nominations" only counts three nominations. Could you please assume good faith and stop following me around on almost every article I nominate? The Banner talk 00:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to BtoB (band), as per the guidelines: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:05, 11 October 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 15:53, 17 October 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to BtoB (band) - per WP:MUSIC. Hello Trackinfo, I'm unsure if you're aware of Wikipedia notability guideline. Availability of many many many tons of trillions of billions of millions of 'non-reliable sources' doesn't really make a thing notable on Wikipedia. It is multiple 'reliable sources', say 3 or preferably 5 that discuss the subject in some detail, at least 2 paragraphs. Have you some? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have a serious problem identifying reliable and on-reliable sources outside the major English speaking countries. Our simplistic assessment of "non-reliable" to blogs and Facebook might be discounting the direct, official path of legitimate media . . . even in certain English speaking markets. Unless you are in South Korea and speak the language, I doubt you or any other editor could speak accurately of the media situation in South Korea, or in the K-Pop scene. I see a little of it when it hits American Korean media here in L.A. What I am saying here is, we discount that is being reported in foreign countries because we don't know. I posted sources that cover the specific points in the article, from what is available through translated sources. Trackinfo (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Killed the Prom Queen / Parkway Drive: Split CD[edit]

I Killed the Prom Queen / Parkway Drive: Split CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable album. No charting. No reviews. Only self-published sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 9 October 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 16:08, 17 October 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One of the weaker keeps I've closed lately, due to low participation. A couple of paragraphs being called "significant coverage" is certainly debatable. However, as no one opined to delete (other than the nom), it has been relisted twice, keep is where we find ourselves. Dennis - 2¢ 14:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Parkman[edit]

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

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

I am uncertain if what is here indicates notability, but I see no easy way to decide. The key question is whether coverage of the trials also give him substantial coverage, which is a matter of judgment. DGG ( talk ) 15:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 October 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 15:43, 17 October 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as New York Times and other major news source coverage just edges this over the verifiability and notability thresholds. Not the most notable of subjects but perhaps just notable enough. - Dravecky (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, a lengthy rationale starts from here,

Notability is generally determined the significant coverage of subject in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources (as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO). In present case, Parkman appears to has been written about /as a lawyer with his comments/ on average in two paragraphs in multiple reliable sources as such NYT and LA Times. This basically fulfills the significant coverage in multiple rs criteria and justifies inclusion of subject on Wikipedia.

//I'm aware of the concerns raised in afd rationale, as he only appears to come into some other person news (as attorney), and doesn't really have any coverage on his own. As such in this NYT source, where title is "In Birmingham, Richard Scrushy Is a Local Story", another NYT, where title is "Closing Arguments Wind Up at Scrushy Trial", and Parkman is mentioned couple of time with his comments. There are many similar ones in present article. So, trials involving high-profile entities that received continuous significant attention of multiple reliable media, did really make the attorney notable who appeared in there with his comments throughout the span of trial cases? As a Wikipedia article is supposed to be based on secondary, independent and reliable sources, we may end up writing an article on Parkman using these sources as a 'commentary of Parkman', he said this, that, etc. But it is not entirely true, there are many more sources that does discuss Parkman in particular and perhaps has not taken into consideration while nominating the article for deletion as they are not presently cited in the article (or say, not normally available on Google search).//

One of them, I've found on HighBeam that does discuss Parkman in particular (-a lawyer who is him and he who is a lawyer). "Parkman Requests Chief Remain Free". Science Letter. NewsRX. 6 October 2009. The article is all about Parkman. I'll quote first two paragraphs from the article here,

Jim Parkman, an attorney with The Cochran Firm, recently hired to represent former Lumberton, Mississippi chief of police Maurice Hammond in his fight to overturn his Federal convictions for FEMA fraud, has asked United States District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. to allow Hammond to remain free while Hammond's appeal is pending (see also The Cochran Firm - Birmingham Criminal Defense).
"We anticipate filing an appeal within the next couple of months. We have identified at least seven issues for which we will request relief from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. With the appeal process potentially taking up to a year and a half, we feel it would be appropriate for Mr. Hammond to be allowed to remain free to allow the appeals process run its' course," offered Parkman.

//However, it is undeniable that he is mostly notable for being an attorney in the 'Scrushy trial' case. There are at least 50 reliable sources that does discuss Parkman in relation to this case (If asked, I'd list them here). It doesn't make the subject qualify BLP1E as he has been an attorney in many other trials as well that were discussed in detail with frequent mention of Parkman in multiple reliable media.//

My answer to the key question asked in afd rationale is, Yes -Parkman did received significant coverage thorough out the span of trials as much that he satisfies the Wikipedia notability standard and merits a Wikipedia article. Therefore, I'd like to !vote keep here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  10:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Choose to Love, Live or Die[edit]

Choose to Love, Live or Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable album. No charting. No reviews. No sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep reviews and sources have now been added.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficiently referenced enough to establish notability.Dan arndt (talk) 14:58, 12 October 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 16:10, 17 October 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism in the Falkland Islands[edit]

Anarchism in the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article opens with:

There are historically few or no known instances of modern anarchism in the Falkland Islands

Well, if there is no such thing as anarchism in the Falkland Islands, why should there be an article about it?

Most of the article discusses various incidents of rebellionr that took place in the Falklands, but none of those rebellions had any connection to anarchism. Then, there is a discussion of how certain anarchists felt about the Falklands War, but none of them were from the Falklands.

In essence, this article is not about Anarchism in the Falkland Islands, because there is no such thing as Anarchism in the Falkland Islands. We could just as easily have an article about anarchism on Mars. Carabinieri (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is confusing and seems to have very little encyclopedic to say, as the nomination has pointed out. JTdale ^Talk 04:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article just gives a history of the Falkland Islands with a focus on various conflicts and historical government systems that might have sort of maybe vaguely resembled anarchism. There were a couple of books on anarchy that mentioned the Falkland Islands, but these were just passing mentions that were generally unrelated to anarchism. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]