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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensu (law)[edit]

Consensu (law) (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)

"Consensu" is not really a legal concept, simply a Latin word that exists in a number of quotes. Wikipedia is not a Latin-to-English dictionary. Gccwang (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question "How possible is a redirect to Consent (criminal law)?" asks one with very limited latin and legal becakground.野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 05:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A more likely target would be Law of obligations#contracts, where consensu are (briefly) discussed. James500 (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball keep and improve. I am afraid the nominator is wrong. "Consensu" is the name of a type of contract in Roman law. See for example Amos, History and Principles of the Civil Law of Rome. From what I can gather from GBooks, "consensu" are the class of contracts that do not require formalities. James500 (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the quotes in our article "Re, verbis, scripto, consensu, traditione, junctura vestes sumere pacta solent" is a list of the six methods by which a contract can be formed which appears to be taken from Bracton: [6]. James500 (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete with possible copyright violation issues since the article appears to be identical with this passage on this page. The term Consensu usually does not stand alone in Latin legal terminology, but with other words, such that Consensu has no real legal meaning other than "with consent", and in order for it to mean something, must be conjoined with another term (as suggested by the article). My minimal searches did not find substantive discussion of the term as a term, required to meet the GNG, although it may be possible that such sources exist.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Tomwsulcer: That book was published in 2012. Our article has had that content since 2009. Prima facie, they are copying from us. The impression that I get is that Cram101 is a mirror of Wikipedia, as lots of stuff seems to be reproduced verbatim.

Consensu is used as a standalone term in Roman law. It doesn't refer to the presence of consent, it refers to the absence of formalities. (People sometimes give things counter-intuitive names). Amos and Bracton don't conjoin it with any other term. They give it as the name of that type of contract. "Minimal searches" do not justify the deletion of any article (WP:BEFORE). James500 (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about the Cram book extracting info from the Wikipedia page (and then slapping a copyright label on it). Still, the article, in its present form, has no references. I had trouble finding them. Would you be so kind to put something in there that the rest of the community can possibly check as per WP:V?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article from "The Teaching Economist" appears to say that Cram101 is a mirror. James500 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not unreferenced. It expressely cites Blackstone's Commentries as a source, a book so well known that it requires no further explanation. It also cites "Seip's Estate", a case reported at page 26 of volume 1 of the Pennsylvania District Reports (that is what "1 Pa Dist 26" means). I have also pointed out that part of it is taken from the book commonly known as "Bracton" (ie "De Legibus et Consutudinibus Angliae" written c 1250 by Henry of Bratton). If you Google the other quotes, I'm sure you will find they are all from public domain law books in GBooks. WP:V doesn't require that sources be cited in the article to avoid deletion of the article, only that they exist. Try searching for consensu law -consensus, consensu+contract-consensus, consensu+roman-consensus and so forth. For example, Gordon's Compendium of Roman Law has this on p 120. And Bracton contains a detailed discussion of all six forms of vestimenta pactorum. It is absolutely inconceivable that any of the handful (4 or 6 depending on which source you use) of types of contract in Roman law will not have received significant coverage over the course of more than two thousand years. James500 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't seem to have an article on Roman contract law or the Roman law of obligations. Why not move this article to an appropriate location and rework it so that it is about the whole thing (to which Gordon, cited above, for example, devotes many pages)? Gordon's Compendium is public domain, so you could use that as a starting point. This article does contain important material that we will want to use even if it is, currently, a bit of a mess. James500 (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts that probably isn't necessary. Closer inspection of GBooks indicates that consensu contracts satisfy GNG easily and by a very wide margin. Entire chapters of books are devoted to them. In addition to the chapter in Gordon's Compendium (pp 130 to 136 in the 2nd edition), see also, for example, chapter 26 of Bowyer's Commentaries on the Modern Civil Law, chapter 5 of The Roman Law of Obligations and chapter 12 of An Introduction to the Principles of Roman Civil Law. The level of coverage is enormous. I should point out that consensu is a massive swathe of contract law including all contracts of sale and hire, all agency and all partnerships. I have it in mind to rewrite this article in the near future. James500 (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rethinking things, based on James500 excellent comments, I still wonder what is best here. See, the word consensu essentially is an adjective, in terms of the Latin language, meaning "with consent". My question is: is this word, in itself, sufficiently notable to merit an article in Wikipedia according to the guidelines such as WP:GNG? That's my question. The article lacks inline sources; I did not find sources discussing "consensu" as a Latin term in law, in itself, in depth. Rather, what I think James500 is saying, and I think these points are right, is that there are references when the adjective "consensu" is combined with other Latin terms to form Roman legal constructions, such as Contracts Consensu, and that such subjects are encyclopedic, meriting wiki-articles. So, my thinking is still that either the current article Consensu (law) should be deleted or else reduced to a sentence or two, explaining that the term had meaning in ancient Roman law, with an expanded "See also" section pointing to articles existing or to be written, such as "Contracts consensu" (which merits an article).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to write an article on this type of contract. If you don't like the name of that article, feel free to move the article to one of the many alternative names of this type of contract attested to by the sources. Bear in mind, however, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so, no matter how many different names this type of contract has, we will only have one article on it, because there is only one topic. We will not have separate articles for, say, "contract consensu" and "obligatio consensu" and "obligation ex consensu" because they are, unless I am badly mistaken, one and the same thing. Like "bike" and "bicycle" are the same thing. James500 (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "this type of contract" are you referring to Contracts consenu? As I said, I think that would be a notable encyclopedic topic and not a dictionary definition, and I think if you write such an article, or move the existing content in the current "Consensu" article to such an article, and add references, that you will be on firm ground, and I think that would be fine and that the community would agree. But having only one article on a Latin adjective can be problematic since there is the term Consensu omnium meaning "By the agreement of all" and ex consensu meaning "by agreement" (without the all part); and there is tacito consensu meaning "With tacit consent -- Done with the unexpressed but presumed consent of a principal party". The different meanings illustrate my continuing problem with this article, specifically, that "consensu" is only an adjective, that presuming that "consensu" is the same as "Contracts consensu" or "obligations ex consensu" is misleading and is an act of original research, that it makes sense to have separate articles if that is what you wish, with perhaps the current article "Consensu" being turned into a disambiguation page to point to the more specific referenced articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I searched numerous Latin-law dictionaries for the term "consensu" but all were empty, suggesting that the term is not used in current discourse in the legal world. Consensu is not in Beck's Law Dictionary, not in Duhaimes law dictionary, not listed in Wikipedia's list of Latin law terms, and not in Law.com's dictionary, and not in Legum.org's dictionary either, nor here either. If the word 'consensu' is directly related to 'consensus', such that one is a different case of the other (eg dative, nominative, ablative, interrogative etc) then the term 'consensus' does not appear as a stand-alone term either, but is used with other words to form terms such as "consensus facit legem" meaning "consent makes the law".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't OR, Amos says that "consensu" is an alternative name for "contracts consensu", but since it bothers you, I will move the article to an unambiguous title. There is some material in the article of doubtful relevance which I will also remove. James500 (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The article requires and will receive further expansion but should be completely immune from deletion in its present form. James500 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks James for the point. Again with very limited latin and legal becakground, by the two sentences in Law of obligations#contracts, I would say the article works better being about Gaius' now-defunct classification of contracts, hence Tom's dab/move/create-articles suggestion. Other categories have flourished well with their own articles, with contracts litteris at Literal contracts in Roman law and contracts re at Real contracts in Roman law. I would wager the Roman Law textbooks already cited in these two other could easily discuss contracts consensu in good weight also. BTW speaking of consensu(al) contracts, how relevant is Locatio conductio? It pops up when I search for "consensual contract". 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 15:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Rephrased 15:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Locatio conductio is a type of contract consensu. It should be merged into or summarised in the main article. James500 (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, most educational and encyclopedic. Also persuaded by exchange, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Switching to Keep based on article improvements, and renaming the article, although it still has a long way to go, with a primary concern that (possibly) too many Latin disparate legal terms are linked under one term, but that is a content issue, not a keep or delete issue.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Confirms keep after great fixes. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 02:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 20:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muckgers[edit]

Muckgers (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)

Student blog with little indication of notability, and heavy reliance on self-published sources. Apparently broke one story that received some national coverage. PROD tag was removed. —Swpb^talk 20:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muckgers is owned by Muckgers Media LLC. It is a legally incorporated and independently owned local news reporting organization akin to Rutgers' other student run publication The Daily Targum. How much local national/international news it makes does not address whether it is notable in the local community. Muckgers serves a community of 35000 students and 55000 residents. It is notable in the same sphere as other hyperlocals. See The Alternative Press, for example.

Further, according to [[Wikipedia:Notability (media), a newspaper needs to produce award winning work (Muckgers received grant from state org) and is considered reliable (Muckgers was cited by other state news as well as Sports Illustrated, Associated Press, Star Ledger, USA Today. Being cited by secondary sources also meets Wikipedia: Notability (media)'s primary criterion. Simongalperin (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, getting a grant is not what is meant by "award-winning work". Grants are awarded every day to organizations that have done literally nothing at all. And coverage with respect to a single event is not necessarily enough to sufficiently establish notability. —Swpb^talk 12:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But is also not necessarily not enough to establish notability. I understand your argument but notability doesn't exist in a vacuum - notability is relative to the individuals that find it notable. I think you're suggesting that relatively few of the hundreds of millions of English speakers find Muckgers notable. However, that does not mean the org is not notable regionally. There is also the issue of suggesting that hyperlocal news is not as relevant or doesn't serve its population as well as national news - an issue of democratization.Simongalperin (talk) 17:42, 17 September 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 05:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'll withdraw my nomination; Dr. Fleischman has found enough references to convince me of the organization's notability. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Impact[edit]

Global Impact (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. Appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG. I failed to find much non-trivial coverage in third party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's difficult finding sources given the name of the organization. I've found a smattering that supports a "keep" verdict: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Some have limited coverage, some are of questionable reliability, but the Washington Examiner source puts it over the top IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 September 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 05:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per DrFleischman it may pass GNG. Dmatteng (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: These are all reliable secondary sources with significant coverage: [12], [13], [14], [15]. All of these are very negative coverage, but that's how it goes sometimes. You reap what you sow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough for me; I'll go ahead and close this as keep since the sources you found address my notability concerns. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:26, 3 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 14:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Order of Druids[edit]

Secular Order of Druids (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 could not establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Possibly worth a merge or redirect, but I couldn't find an appropriate target to propose. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be cautious about deleting this. Yes, there are no sources but given the time period I don't think finding sources will be easy. Haven't really looked for sources, but SOD and its founder are mentioned in a Guardian article from 1997, reproduced on a server that Wikipedia won't let me list: Google "CJ Stone's Britain: Regency Stoned" Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 September 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 05:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Commemorative Air Force. And delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate States Air Force[edit]

Confederate States Air Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [16])

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

Article does not cite any secondary sources and does not appear to be notable. Possible redirect to the Harry Turtledove series. Has had a notice about its lack of notability up for more than two years. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. "Confederate Air Force" is the former (1957-2002) name of the organization now called the Commemorative Air Force, a well-known group that preserves and exhibits historical aircraft. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:38, 12 September 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 05:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnotable fictional air force, then possibly create a redirect to the Commemorative Air Force as a moderately likely near-match possibility. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Institutions_in_the_Southern_Victory_Series#Confederate_States_2. As written it's a laughable piece of WP:SYNTH which is trying to start an article comparing Confederate air forces in various alternate history settings. Obviously that has to go. However, all the information there is relevant to this one setting, "Southern Victory Series," and belongs there. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no redirect non-notable fictional air force. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then Redirect to Commemorative Air Force. Clearly the current article is WP:SYNTH that has to go, but it was the previous name of what appears to be a notable organisation and is thus a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:27, 6 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 06:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bimadirect[edit]

Bimadirect (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)

Subject fails notability guidelines. All the reference provided only list mention of the subject without any actual Significant coverage. Article is work of two SPA accounts, most likely a PR company job.Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 12:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Insurance broker & website, like so many. The article even classes it as an "early stage business"; no evidence of notability. (The article was even featuring their call centre number, which I have removed; Yellow Pages for that.) AllyD (talk) 18:10, 12 September 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 05:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Seems like a basic advertisement. Wgolf (talk) 21:29, 3 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 14:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Stone Mountain[edit]

The Wizard of Stone Mountain (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)

Deporded with no explanation, non-notable fan film, only coverage is from unreliable blogs/forums/podcasts, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: While we might expect that fan films are covered in fan blogs Bovineboy2008... when did Hill Country News or Austin Chronicle become blogs? Reying on much the same sourcing, perhaps The Fountain of Life and The Trials of Darksmoke should be brought to AFD as well? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Austin Chronicle source is merely a listing, not actual coverage from what I'm seeing. The Hill Country News may count as a source, but a very thin one coming from a very small news source. I would need more coverage on that level or higher personally to pass notability standards. BOVINEBOY2008 19:44, 12 September 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 05:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 13:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Czech immigration to Mexico[edit]

Czech immigration to Mexico (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)

Whilst I don't doubt there are 425 people of Czech descent, that is a drop in an ocean in a population of Mexico of 118 million. The actual topic fails WP:GNG as the topic is not subject to significant third party coverage. The Spanish version of this article doesn't have much sources either LibStar (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it is true that the Czech diaspora in Mexico is small, but the topic (Czech immigration to Mexico) has rich and interesting history [17] (Embassy of the Czech Republic in Mexico), [18] (Ostravská univerzita). Have you ever heard about the Jesuits Šimon Boruhradský (nicknamed "de Castro", an architect in Ciudad da México and other Mexican cities who helped to design and build river regulation systems [19], [20]), Maxmilián Amarell, Adam Gilg-Jílek, Jiří Hostinský or Josef Neumann, travelling to Mexico since the second half of the 17th century? (see the article "Czech Missionaries in New Spain" published by The Hispanic American Historical Review, available via JSTOR). The traveller and explorer Čeněk Paclt fought in the Mexican–American War (1846-48), hundreds of Czechs accompanied the emperor Maximilian I of Mexico during his crazy journey in Mexico. Vojtěch Frič and Egon Kisch, among others, spent a part of their careers in Mexico. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for finding this info, but I am thinking it would be better incorporated into this new article Czech Republic–Mexico relations? LibStar (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure because the links I posted here refer to the period before the existence of the state of the Czech Republic, which is mentioned in the title of the second article and thus might be misleading. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:26, 15 September 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 05:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep upon adding the references noted by Vejvančický (talk above. Taram (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

citing an essay is hardly a good argument without explanation. As has been pointed out, many of the new sources refer to before the Czech Republic. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar. This stub has been improved drastically in recent days, and while at first glance was a mess, it is good enough to keep right now. AfD is not here to fix every problem that can be repaired by normal editing processes. Long before Czechoslovakia or the Czech Republic, there were a Czech people, who are recognized as having been the inhabitants of Bohemia, Moravia, etc., who speak the Czech language. It's like saying there's no such thing as a Kurd because Kurdistan has never been a sovereign nation. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – there were still Czechs before the Czech Republic. Sources provided cover "Czech people" and their immigration to, and involvement with, Mexico, which seems to be the scope of the article. Whether the article is at "the right title" is not the primary discussion point here. C679 15:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Mistakes (Heffron Drive album)[edit]

Happy Mistakes (Heffron Drive album) (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)

Released today, the album is not notable enough for inclusion. There are no independent, secondary sources to support notability of the album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Cult of Green (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This should not be deleted, it's an actual debut album. It's on CD in stores all over the world, it's online and it's by a popular group and member. The lead singer is Kendall Schmidt of Big Time Rush. If this is deleted you mind as well delete every other artists album page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick90210 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' articles on wikipedia are on subjects that independent, secondary sources have written about. Not every album ever released is notable. Cult of Green (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Heffron Drive where the content is already included. There are sources discussing the album, but while this is all the group has done it would be better to cover it in a single article. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Delete. Actually this would be pretty useless as a redirect, although Happy Mistakes would be a reasonable redirect there. --Michig (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:35, 12 September 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 06:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Quintart[edit]

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

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

A actor who has done only non notable roles. As well as apparently a model and a dj. But nothing meets notability. Wgolf (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - He is active in South Korea as a model and TV personality. He also appear in many tv shows in South Korea tv programs. Kanghuitari (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• -Well you could of put something about how he is notable with some reliable refs. Wgolf (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment White guy speaks Korean, and so effing what? But Koreans eat it up:[21][22][23][24] La crème de la crème (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner[reply]

• -Well I can't read the refs there but I'll have to take your word for it ha, the problem is the article itself has no reliable sources. Wgolf (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I add sources. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-thanks for adding he sources, now lets wait to see what happens next. Wgolf (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wish to apologize to User:Kanhuitari for thinking that user made the above comment attributed to User:La creme de la creme, a few days ago, when I communicated with User:Wgolf. I don't feel myself qualified to discuss articles for deletion, but would like to add that User:Kanhuitari has made useful (and above my skills edits for Non-Summit, ie. adding the Revised Romanization and McCune–Reischauer name for the Korean name, and creating and linking the page to 10 more countries' Wikipedia pages, in addition to other useful edits (and creating Julian Quintart and 2 more bio pages of persons found on the Non-Summit page, Enes Kaya and Sam Okyere. I will thank User:Kanhuitari personally on their talk page.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-Well I'm not sure if I want to withdraw or not as I would like some English language refs, I rather just wait for an outcome to be honest. Still nice job so far.Wgolf (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added some English language references and more appearances. I will continue to add, if time is allowed. Thanks.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 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 06:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:ENT, in my opinion: [25], [26]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pinoy Big Brother: All In#Week_16. redirected to "Week 16" instead since that was the only section that discussed the short film (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 21:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endless (film)[edit]

Endless (film) (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 satisfy WP:NFILMS. PROD declined without explanation by an IP. Safiel (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: All In, week 15 episode "Lights Camera Action!, as this short was created as part of that episode,[27] was not screened elsewhere, and has no notability outside that episode. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:09, 15 September 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 06:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Panjab University, Chandigarh. Emerge away the sourced material Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Environment and Vocational Studies, Chandigarh[edit]

Centre for Environment and Vocational Studies, Chandigarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article had been nominated for merging with Panjab University, Chandigarh. However, when I started to carry out the merge, I could find no reference to this Centre or any similarly named Centre at the target page. Checking the University's web page http://puchd.ac.in/faculties.php I could also find no reference to such a Centre. The current page provides no independent sources, and I could not find any in a search. Even the website provided at the article is a dead link. So nothing in the article is verified. A Google search found a few mentions at non-reliable sources such as blogs, suggesting there may once have been such a department. If there ever was, it apparently no longer exists. Since nothing is verified and the proposed target page does not mention it, I believe a redirect/merge would be inappropriate. The Centre never was notable or verified, so WP:NOTTEMPORARY doesn't apply. MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable sources available to build a vericyable article from. ~KvnG 17:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: See Points to note while debating in WikiProject India related AFDs

Thank you for the link to the essay. Lack of independent reliable sources is one thing; that might be excused. But a department of a university should at least be mentioned at the website of the university it is supposedly a part of! The university website I linked to above is quite comprehensive. It lists all of the departments and schools and centres and other subdivisions of the university. It does NOT list this centre. There is literally no evidence that such a department exists. So I believe it would be inappropriate to merge it; there is nothing verified to merge, and the university we would merge it to does not acknowledge its existence. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: It do exist see [28] and even there is a book named Ecological Basis of Agroforestry by Daizy Rani Batish, Ravinder Kumar Kohli, Shibu Jose, Harminder Pal Singh which mentions about this see here CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm! You think "Department of Environment Studies" is a new name for this centre? That's possible - although I notice that the founder and director of the Center, Ravindra Kumar Kohli, is not a current faculty member in the Department.[29] In any case, a redirect from the current title would be unhelpful and inappropriate. I suppose we could change the name of this article to "Department of Environment Studies, Panjab University" and then redirect. However, since most universities have a Department of Environment Studies, I don't really see the point of a redirect. This is not some noteworthy "Centre" but merely one of dozens of departments at the university, and a small one at that. --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Keep Generally recognized degree awarding institutions are considered to be notable but in this case a merger will be alright. CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be simply a department of a larger institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment • The most important question, was if it exist, well it do exist as I mentioned above one of Google/Book link which is sufficient to prove its existence. CutestPenguin^Hangout 02:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that link is pretty good evidence that it did exist in 2008. --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: It fits perfectly under History section of Panjab University, Chandigarh, don't you think so? — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the history section, which is one paragraph long and is focused very broadly on the history and development of the entire university. Personally I think the short-term (maybe 10 years?) existence of a small, barely-sourced Centre (about which nothing is verified except that it did exist in 2008) is too trivial to mention in the history of a huge university like this. Others may feel differently. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought: rather than cluttering up the history, we could put "(formerly the Centre for Environmental and Vocational Studies)" after the listing for "Department of Environment Studies" in the list of departments. However, we have no evidence that the current department was once the Centre; as I noted above, the faculty is different. I still favor deletion, without a redirect, because of the lack of any verified information about the Centre, as well as nothing indicating a relationship to the current Department. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 11 September 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! 12:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The discussion above has me convinced it would be a good compromise. Bearian (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akio Sugino[edit]

Akio Sugino (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)

Certainly exists, but article is entirely sourced to an unreliable source (ANN/E), and what reliable coverage I can find runs to half a sentence at http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-11-10/dezaki-the-tale-of-genji-anime-to-debut-in-january. Additional sources welcome as always. j⚛e decker^talk 23:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The person would be listed in the credits of the work they have done. With Japanese names, they can be spelled in different ways. If anyone can speak Japanese, they'd have an easier time searching for things. The Anime and Manga Wikipedia search [30] shows results. Ain't It Cool [31] reads "With character design and animation direction from frequent collaborator Akio Sugino, Osamu Dezaki was the person to take Golgo 13 into anime." Otaku usa Magazine [32] "The recently deceased director Osamu Dezaki and sexagenarian character designer/animation director Akio Sugino oozed style to the point where I suspect the actual blood was removed from their bodies long ago and replaced with pastels, which in turn were used to paint the trademark still-frame “postcard memories” of their productions." Dream Focus 09:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but oh god please fix. "Osmu Tenzuka"? Really? (Also more like he worked with Osamu Dezaki who is totally another person although worked in company founded by Tezuka) See also ja:杉野昭夫 for Japanese sources.野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 07:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now Dream Focus has provided some references so it would be worth it to see if the article can be improved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Knowledgekid87. Dmatteng (talk) 16:11, 1 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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 21:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Action Item[edit]

Action Item (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 band with no third party reliable sources. Tinton5 (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Flatly incorrect; the group's 2013 album Resolution charted on the Billboard 200 at #72, which the article already asserts. Meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Billboard claim doesn't check out AFAICT. The link is just to the current Billboard 200, and searching the Billboard site for "Action Item" only turns up their 2010 album with no chart position; "Resolution" doesn't appear at all, which is odd if it's supposed to have charted. I'm open to changing my vote if somebody can find it in the Billboard charts and provide a solid link; the Billboard 200 is weekly, and the charts on billboard.com don't seem to go beyond the #20 position, so there's a possibility it's just hiding somewhere on that awkward-to-navigate site. — Gwalla | Talk 20:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, unfortunately, Billboard.com is not the best place to find Billboard's own chart history. See here: [33] Chubbles (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Changing my !vote to keep. Meets WP:BAND#2. — Gwalla | Talk 18:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Divisible polynomial[edit]

Divisible polynomial (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)

(1) Term not used under that name (in English), and the logical usage of the name would be reducible polynomials. A possible title would be polynomial congruence identitites, but that doesn't strike me as meeting WP:GNG. (2) No reliable sources are provided. The existing source seems to be a Chinese language math forum. (3) It's been deleted on the Chinese Wikipedia. Google translate mangles technical terms used there, so I can't be sure, but I believe the reason given was that it wasn't sourced. Because of sourcing issues, migrating the material to WikiBooks or WikiVersity [under another name] is another option, but there's nothing that could be retained here unless sources can be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on the talk page in regard the ((Prod)), now removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apparently ("apparently", because the poor writing makes it difficult to understand) this article is about the polynomials with integer coefficients, which, viewed as a functions from the integers to the integers have all their values divisible by some fixed integer n. This article consists simply in a few well known examples of such polynomials. Naming these polynomials "divisible polynomials", and collecting well known examples of them is certainly WP:OR. I have not found anything else in the article. D.Lazard (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @D.Lazard: No, it apparently deals with polynomials over Z_n as well. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as A-10. A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This is just the generalized Carmichael theorem, of which Euler's theorem and Fermat's little theorem are examples, even though historically they developed the from the specific to the more general. The usage here "divisible polynomial" does not exist per se, and hence a redirect is not supported. See especially the section Carmichael function#Hierarchy of results, and the more detailed explanations in general at Carmichael function, including divisibility. The article at Afd was recently created on 20 September. --Bejnar (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bejnar: Although it's not clear since the article is badly written, these theorems can be applied to polynomial factorization but the subject is distinct. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the content of this article is about. --Bejnar (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename. (You could also merge this into irreducible polynomial but that would be a chore.) This is a topic that easily passes WP:GNG - I can easily show you a dozen algebra textbooks that devote large sections to the problem of determining whether a polynomial is reducible. As far as I can tell the material is not duplicated in any other article. Certainly the article is a mess, and tags should be added. The term itself is rare but has been used in other sources, by the way: [34], [35]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sammy1339: I think we should merge this into integer-valued polynomial.--Tttfffkkk (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tttfffkkk: Maybe I misunderstood what the article was about. I thought it might belong in irreducible polynomial or factorization of polynomials. But perhaps you should just WP:USERFYIT to your account until it's legible. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. Apparently from the discussion here (I couldn't figure this out from the article itself) the topic is polynomials whose values for integer arguments are always composite numbers. There is likely something encyclopedic to say about them (they're mentioned for instance in JSTOR 2301357; relatedly see Sierpinski number and Schinzel's hypothesis H) but the article as written is so incomprehensible as to be not worth saving by any kind of merge or rename. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• On reconsideration I can mostly endorse this position as the current article is totally unreadable. However I think it contains potentially useful information, so I hope it will be userfied in the hope that it can be improved. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:08, 1 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R2rick[edit]

R2rick (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)

Can't put this as a prod as there are "refs" per say even if unreliable. So I say delete as too soon if ever. Wgolf (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-looks like that R2Rick has been deleted also. Wgolf (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no coverage in reliable sources. The cited News Straits Times article does not mention him. No evidence of activity that would lead to adequate coverage. Claims fail for lack of verification in reliables sources. Fails WP:NOTEBLP, fails WP:MUSIC. Looks as though it may be eligible for a speedy delete under A-7 as an Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. --Bejnar (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - preferably speedily, as there is no indication of significance. --bonadea contributions talk 12:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note comments on 29 September from the author of the article on both this page's talk page Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/R2rick and the articles talk page Talk:R2rick which are almost identical. I don't see any additional reliable sources or indicia of significance. --Bejnar (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not speedy, since there is a credible but extremely weak claim to notability (he apparently performed at an event, which isn't a good claim at all, but it's there). It doesn't change the fact that the subject of the article has not received enough coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:58, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Brown (Christian author)[edit]

Rebecca Brown (Christian author) (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)

BLP with incredibly weak sourcing, consisting of USENET posts, web comics, unattributed and unpublished PRIMARY material, etc. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR or GNG. Tgeairn (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I did some quick research, and can find only various Christian blogs that mention this woman, most of whom seem to not think very highly of her. I couldn't find even one reliable secondary source that covers any of her supposed "best-selling" books. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. A few mentions on assorted blogs but that's about it. Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and fails WP:AUTHOR no multiple independent periodical articles or reviews about her. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of coverage, much less significant coverage, in reliable sources. Fails WP:NOTEBLP fails WP:AUTHOR. The book The Gifts of the Body (Harper-Collins, 1994) is by a different Rebecca Brown. --Bejnar (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Tgeairn. Two of the current sources are self published and the third is a comic strip that is not RS does not mention the BLP as author. Even if it did it would still not be notable. Same as other editors, I also was unable to find any RS on this BLP. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable per above. Despite having been a watcher of this article for several years, I cannot disagree with the above arguments and would not be upset if this article was simply deleted.Legitimus (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: While this article is based on lousy sources (although I will quibble with those who say that a comic book is inherently one of them; had it actually contained the information that it was based on Brown's stories, it would have been a perfectly fine source for the claim it was supporting), there are better sources to be found on her. I leave it to others to evaluate if they are good enough, but here are a couple of the strongest ones Google Books finds:

• Nelson's Illustrated Guide to Religions, published by Thomas Nelson (a major Christian publisher) - if the page is kept, there is useful information here.
• Lure of the Sinister, published by NYU Press, which I assume is a university press. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Neither of these sources offers significant coverage of her. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends upon what one considers significant. Lure of the Sinister pages 196–198 contains a great deal about her delusions; and Nelson's Illustrated Guide to Religions page 616 shows why she lost her medical license. But overall they don't add up to significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Starting from the links in a Watchtower page that I decided was not RS, I found she has quite a few mentions in books, particularly on the impact of US evangelicals on the "deliverance" movement in Africa and in African diaspora communities, and at least two news mentions about her books and speaking. I created a Reception section using these, but could doubtless have found more book references, especially - I see above that others have. I believe she meets GNG and that the article now demonstrates that. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mere mentions like that in African Christianity: Its Public Role and Exporting the American Gospel: Global Christian Fundamentalism don't add much. The coverage in the Jamaica Gleaner is much more substantive, although it still seems to me that the total does not add up to the level of WP:NOTEBLP or WP:GNG coverage required, but YMMV. --Bejnar (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, multiple mentions, especially stating that the subject is well-known, in demand, or sells unusually well contribute to a claim of notability under the GNG or under WP:NAUTHOR, item 1. I had a look at the Medway book, The Lure of the Sinister, which does indeed devote several pages to her, and added it as a reference on her birth name and being a former physician; it also further documents the popularity of at least one of her books. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need to point out that the actual PFO article at the Watch the Tower page is based on is from a real published journal that is housed in libraries and is considered reliable enough for the very books quoted above to cite it as a source. It should not be confused with the USENET post reprinted on the Answers in Action site.Legitimus (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not sufficient sourcing to warrant an article Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak Keep When I submitted a BLP for help, I did not intend for the article to be deleted, but offending material to be vetted. I think there are enough references (barely) to warrant an article stub, but if the consensus is delete, I am fine with that. Basileias (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Changed per Tomwsulcer's findings.[reply]
• Keep. Coupla things don't add up. First, here's her book on Amazon: notice that it has 405 customer reviews. That's four hundred and five customer reviews, meaning, people are reading her books, maybe even buying them, casting spells to get them free from Amazon and doing devilish curses if they're late in coming. Sheesh. Another thing: her Wikipedia page, around here since 2008, gets 100 pageviews per day. There's some interesting commentary at RationalWiki. Another view in The Escapist online magazine. Some discussion here, plus mention here, some discussion here in a fringe publication, she's discussed here. So, what to make of all this? She's not mainstream, but kind of an occult splinter-offshoot Christian with a take on Satanism and witches that allows her to appeal to people who believe in that stuff, and she gets a lot of readers, but probably isn't taken seriously by mainstream media, and isn't taken seriously by mainline Christian press or churches either, so it is somewhat hard to find references that us Wikipedians will see as reliable (her relatively common name 'Rebecca Brown' makes searching rather difficult -- I used filters (such as "Satan" OR "demon" OR "Christian" OR "occult" OR "devil") to winnow out the other Rebecca Browns out there. So if she's deleted here at Wikipedia, it will be because Wikipedians don't regard her viewpoint, in which she says things like we must take up the power and authority that we now have through Jesus Christ and ‘cleanse ourselves’ of ‘filthiness’ or demons, as a valid viewpoint, and I think we need to keep her in Wikipedia, but say she's fringe-y.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tomwsulcer for digging those out. Would you say that WP:NFRINGE covers this? If so, do these sources (or any of the existing ones) meet the bar there? Tgeairn (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: in addition to the number of reviews on Amazon, note the sales data. It is in the top 10,000 sellers at the moment, which, given that it is a a decades-old title, is impressive and suggests real ongoing interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 4 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. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes J04n(talk page) 14:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruriko Kikuchi[edit]

Ruriko Kikuchi (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)

It could be the result of a language barrier but I am unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, don't believe the page meets GNG or MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 15:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have fixed the two references to her prizes, so those two are now verified. I will leave it up to others to judge whether this satisfies criterion 9 of WP:MUSICBIO: "Has won or placed in a major music competition". I do not know whether these competitions are "major" or not. Michitaro (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Busoni is major. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination Thank you Michitaro for updating the links. J04n(talk page) 14:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow close, no reason to keep this any longer Jac16888 ^Talk 17:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donyi Taga (Networker)[edit]

Donyi Taga (Networker) (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)

Repeatedly recreated article (see Donyi Taga). Non-notable person, Wikipedian possibly attempting to create autobiographical article through proxy/socks. WP:Resume. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The subject is a student and is apparently interested in photography and other things; none of these are claims to encyclopaedic notability. Much of the material on the page is suitable to a user page - and indeed also appears on User:Donyi Taga. There are "references" to a Wordpress page on a festival called Si-Donyi - no mention of this person. No evidence found to indicate biographical notability. I'd normally suggest CSD A7, but as the link above shows, this has already been deleted 4 times this month, so a persisting AfD decision may be more appropriate. AllyD (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with a side trip to WP:SPI if necessary. There's a difference between articlespace and userspace, and this might be suitable for the latter, but not the former. Huon (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and Salt - this is not Facebook - Arjayay (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment add WP:COI as subject just did substantial edits, and attempted to remove AfD template.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 11:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly not notable and fails WP:BIO and WP:RESUME.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of anything notable. A run of the mill student. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:41, 1 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 13:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Awareness and Information Centre[edit]

Cult Awareness and Information Centre (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 meet WP:NORG. The sources provided fall into three categories:

• Self published material of questionable authourship and copyright (the copyright statement literally says "yada yada yada")
• Coverage of a single event (DMCA takedown request from Landmark)
• Sources that post-date the death of the sole named author of material and yet imply that the organisation was consulted (when in fact the author apparently simply browsed the CAIC website)

None of these meet the requirements to establish Notability. Tgeairn (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Zambelo; talk 11:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. Nine days ago, you agreed that this org does not look notable. You then said that you found scholarly sources and would add them - but have not. On the other hand, I have been checking sources and cannot find anything that rises to the level of significant coverage in secondary sources, let alone meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Tgeairn (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Leaving aside the debate over motives above, the currently cited material does not meet WP:GNG in terms of significant coverage (see also WP:CORPDEPTH). Bondegezou (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with Bondegezou on all counts. Motivations don't count here, policy-based arguments and evidence do. --Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since it was established 25 years ago a notable organisation would have a noticeable profile. I can't find any significant coverage beyond a few listings as a useful organisation. Anybody can label other groups as a cult. I would expect something more tangible, some more achievements which others think are significant before it has an entry at Wikipedia. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Fails to meet the requirements of any of our notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:08, 4 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 13:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fominskiy Leonid Pavlovich[edit]

Fominskiy Leonid Pavlovich (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)

Fail to meet WP:NACADEMICS notability criteria. Wide activities converging of being pseudoscientific, the only peer-reviewed publications are outdated (JETP Lett., 21 2 121, 1975 and another of 1978). BTW, the article in Ru:Wiki was deleted on 20.8.2012 with the similar reasons. Hardman Feidlimid (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - There may be some meat on the bone here, but there is so much hyperbole, such as winning Order of Saint Stanislaus, which in fact they quit awarding before he was born. I think the article is being used as a memorial type page, something we don't do here. I removed the CSD tag two years ago when it was a shell of what it is now, as it didn't meet CSD#A7, but this has turned into a bloody mess that is beyond redemption, even if he were notable, which it doesn't seem he is. Dennis 2¢ 13:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]