Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 29: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:54, 29 October 2013

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 28 October	30 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Procedural closure. Wrong venue. Has been relisted at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Eugenics, the Redirect

These redirects are attempts to introduce neologia by spamming Wikipedia redirects with made-up terms:

Libertarian eugenics
Biolibertarianism
Neo-eugenics
New eugenics

All redirect to "liberal eugenics." These terms are not in common use, and do not have definitions as currently asserted by Wikipedia.

In fact, this is a very transparent effort to advance a Libertarian/Transhumanist agenda by manipulating Wikipedia. Heathhunnicutt (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close and list at WP:RFD. Redirects are discussed at WP:RFD, not at WP:AFD. Calathan (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That explains why the afd1 macro does not expand properly with a redirect link. I agree with the Speedy Close Heathhunnicutt (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Doctor

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

This is an article about a character that has had a minor appearance in one episode of doctor who. All other information constitutes WP:CRYSTAL. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article has MOS issues, and fails WP:MOVIE. PrairieKid (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Article in question was about yes, a currently minor character who is still, no matter how many appearances, the main protaganist. Although little information was given, it was accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added byMcs2050wiki (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON. One or two solid facts the rest probably accurate, but from such close examination of trailers and news reports as to consitute WP:OR. Waiting another 3 and a half weeks before creating this, not too much to ask? Rankersbo (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too soon and may not be worthy of its own article anyway. We don't know yet. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an article on the series. This is what we usually do. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information that can be salvaged within this article is already included in The Name of the Doctor. There is so much WP:OR and WP:Speculation in this article that there is nothing else that can reasonably merged. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 14:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to say about the character at this point - he might not even warrant an article later. Mezigue (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, the creator of the article will be temporarily deleting it until more information is known. Thank you for all your comments I was probably just too eager to see an article created. From 23rd November 2013, the article will be fully updated as he character will need an article. Also, a message to Spudgfsh or whatever. If your not admin, don't act like it. (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way has Spudgfsh "acted like an admin", and why was that behaviour inappropriate? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing more that remind User:Mcs2050wiki that removing the AFD banner is frowned upon while the AFD is still ongoing. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the Cybermen would say. In terms of information, we really don't have anything at all. It claims that this character was created 'between the eighth and ninth' Doctors, but in terms of the show itself this hasn't yet been verified at all. For all we know, the writers may change their minds in post-production of the 2013 Christmas episode and it may wind up saying that he is another version of the Doctor entirely. For example. I dunno. Let's just wait and see. No rush, after all :) Justin.Parallax (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely revised the article with only solid facts. It may be currently small yet I believe it should be kept as more people will add to it. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate In three weeks this will be moot as more information on the character is expected in the upcoming 50th Anniversary. But until then, the three citations only demonstrate that an actor played one scene, and is expected to play more, and the one and only source that used the words "dark" and "Doctor" do not put them in a proper name form as this article does. Delete this, it wishes to someday be as exciting as a crystal ball. -Markeer 23:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The special episode is only 2 weeks away and this discussion has been going for nearly this amount of time.

By the time you want to delete it, an article will be required. Most of the opinions you have placed on this page are not based on facts.Mcs2050wiki (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep decided to delete or edit when the episode has aired as long as everything is referenced there should not be a problem. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harewood Table

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

Absolutely no notability, article even states "an informal, skewed set of criteria which is meant to be taken in jest". Only reference on the whole internet is a single blog post. Absolutely not comparable to something like the Norrington Table. Furthermore, the article was created with an account with the same name as the domain of the single blog post (a blog with no other posts). Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 17:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Whatever this is it is inernal to the University of York, whose colleges are glorified halls of residence. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in-house, intramural, in-joke, or the like. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Life in Prison

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

non notable book, series and author, prod remove without explanation Jac16888 ^Talk 17:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. In depth review here. Stated to be "best-selling Kenyan novel of all time" and to be made into a film here and here. Significant other coverage. There is an argument for a combined article on the trilogy since the other two books will be drawn upon for the film and that would be fine too but per WP:BEFORE there are better alternatives to deletion. Not hugely notable but there is enough there to be worth keeping in some form. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The movie is not out yet, but there are at least 8 to 12 sources on Google meaning it could easily be a notable standalone article. This I believe - as a notable film - is sufficient for the book to meet WP:NBOOK #3, significant film adaption. In addition there are some GNG sources so it's more than just special criteria. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 04:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of national football teams by penalty shootout record

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

This is not notable information for an encyclopaedia. it fails WP:NotStatsBook => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely not encyclopaedic material, more suited to a stats book. – Pee Jay 17:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear case of WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 17:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Fenix down (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not a useful list because of the erratic nature of penalty shootouts; ie they only occur if the match is a draw, and they involve just two players at a time (the goalkeeper and an opposing player). Possibly a List of national football teams by goals scored might be more useful but not penalty shootouts. Green Giant (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just overdoing it on the stats. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bloody stats book to solve bar/pub debates. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this list passes the notability guideline for stand-alone lists, WP:LISTN, as the subject has been discussed as a group by several reliable sources like this, this and [1]. This is exactly that kind of statistics that I want to find in an encyclopedia. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no problem with these statistics being available to people who are interested, but they ARE available...at the one and only source link of this article. Anyone can find this information out there. The reason to have a separate page on Wikipedia that just repeats and reorganizes information on an existing page is what I'd want to know. -Markeer 00:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hinton (composer)

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

I can't find anything online about him except an entry in an italian almanac which describes him as "January 1, 1862, Wednesday born in Claydon (Buckinghamshire) the liturgical composer and organist Joseph Harold Hinton" and apparently according to the book referenced he was an organist. Does that make him notable? 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to locate any secondary coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What about the source that is actually in the article footnotes: David Baptie Musical Scotland, Past and Present: Being a Dictionary of Scottish Musicians from about 1400 Till the Present Time, 1894 p80 "HINTON, JOSEPH HAROLD In 1882 Mr. Hinton was appointed resident music-master at Blair Lodge School, which in 1885 he left on obtaining the situation of organist to Hyndland Church, Hillhead, Glasgow (chiefly through the influence of John Inglis, Esq.), where he still is." an extensive 100 word dictionary entry? And neither of the above editors could find it in the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but if you look you'll see I mention that in my note.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 21:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that is true, "and apparently according to the book referenced" - however both the Scottish biographical dictionaries make reference to him as a "composer" though, even if 5 published opus isn't anything spectacular. I'm still wondering why the burning need to delete a minor Scottish composer who has entries in 2 Scottish musical biographical lexicons? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the AfD the book referenced said " HINTON, JOSEPH HAROLD ..of organist to Hyndland Church, Hillhead, Glasgow (chiefly through the influence of John Inglis, Esq.), where he still is." and it was the only reference. I searched on line and found the other comment which I included here. This didn't seem like notability but I wasn't sure so I asked that question. There is no burning need to delete a Scottish composer- I simply couldn't find anything notable about him and there was nothing in the article to indicate it.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 12:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not hugely notable but I think the sources noted above are enough to warrant inclusion per guidelines about substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep minor notability only but not NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are not good.

1. Reading the first couple pages of Musical Scotland, Past and Present it's apparent this is not a great source for determining notability. The author admits many of the entries are "exceedingly humble description" and seems to have included everyone "lest any deserving musician be omitted." It is an indiscriminate catalog of everyone in Scotland who did anything professionally related to music.
2. Music for the People is a reprint of program flyer information published for the International Exhibition of Glasgow (1888). It is a primary source, like if someone played at the Met and the pamphlet handed out to the audience with the short bio in the back about that evening's artist. At best this source shows Hinton performed as an organist at the exhibition, but based on the large number of other artists it's not clear this would pass WP:ARTIST #4D.
3.The "Catalog of Copyright Entries Library of Congress" and "The British Almanac" don't appear to be significant sources.

I would be more apt to Keep if there were modern sources in addition to these but don't see anything. (please reply below refer to the numbers above) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are there. This is a valuable stub, and all the more valuable because he's not exactly the flavour of the month. Andrewa (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE - just as an organist. Church organists used to be big deals in the Victorian age. Once notable, usually they are always notable. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, the sources don't show he ever was notable. One is a catalog of nearly every person involved in music professionally in Scotland (or, is everyone in that book notable when even the author said many of the entries are of "exceedingly humble description" ie. non-notable); the second source is a show flyer which shouldn't be allowed into evidence, it's a primary source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He also has an entry in Brown and Stratton British musical biography: a dictionary of musical artists, authors and composers, born in Britain and its colonies, p. 200. Voceditenore (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True though that appears to be from Baptie's list according to the preface rather than from another source.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 21:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baptie is one of the many sources they used, but that is immaterial. All biographical dictionaries use material from previous ones—they're tertiary sources. The fact that he has entries in two such works confers enough notability to keep this article. I suspect more information about him could be found by looking at Scottish newspaper archives from the period, which are not online. Voceditenore (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Belongs at WP:TfD. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 19:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosques in Venezuela

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

Only one article. Not needed. Thegreatelgrande (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2013 (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/2013 October 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose - wp:templates for discussion is thataway. Chris857 (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Belongs at WP:TfD. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 19:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosques in Gibraltar

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

Only one article. Not needed. Thegreatelgrande (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2013 (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/2013 October 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Belongs at WP:TfD. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 19:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosques in Benin

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

Only one article. Not needed. Thegreatelgrande (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2013 (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/2013 October 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Belongs at WP:TfD. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 19:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosques in Armenia

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

Only one article. Not needed. Thegreatelgrande (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2013 (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/2013 October 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Belongs at WP:TfD. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 19:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosques in Argentina

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

Only one article. Not needed. Thegreatelgrande (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2013 (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/2013 October 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel++

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

Notability not established. GScholar turns up a conference paper that got cited a few times and a few uncited ones. The GitHub repo has not been forked and only starred six times, so I suspect this library has very few users. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GBooks does turn up a hit, so maybe I was too quick. I'm not allowed to browse that hit, but the snippet suggests Feel++ was previously known as Life. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The project was previously host on subversion then on google code, and now on Github for less than one year. I think the number of star is irrelevant, it doesn't represent the number of users and even not the number of developers (~19 active). This library is involved in several european research projects (High field magnets, vesicles, blood flow simulation, [2][3]...) and for example got 60 000 000 core hours on HPC for 6th Prace call [1]. This project is still actively developed and publish papers after 8 years of existence.

-- (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, additionally the detail provided on the subject is extremely limited. ~Frosty (Talk page) 01:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaud Courlet de Vregille

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

Totally non-notable painter. Searched English and French language sources, and found nothing indicating this painter has any notability at all. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could someone who speaks the language verify if the references listed on the french article are substantial enough to show notability?

Well none of the references are linked, so I can't examine them directly, but it doesn't look likely. The strongest claim to notability in the fr. article is that he was part of an exhibition, but it's not a major one. The "Sources" section lists exposition catalogs (which are almost never used to show notability), regional press, and 3 TV appearances. Without the actual sources, I can't say for sure, but it doesn't look like the .fr article would pass the GNG or WP:CREATIVE if it were translated here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both the English and French articles show a certain focus from the contributing editor(s). The present English language article makes no real attempt to demonstrate notability, merely distant genealogy; and there does seem to be some attempt in the French article to gain notability by association (for example the section about the Eden Théâtre being renovated for 2013 European City of Culture beanfeast). But the key questions are whether the listed awards and exhibitions amount to anything more than run-of-the-mill appearance in group shows etc., and whether the publications quoted are notable (as there are any number of Who's Who type publications)? AllyD (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - France télévision Arnaud Courlet de Vregille peintre reportage, interviewed 3x on French TV over 5 years. Indicates some sort of minor notability in France. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really enough evidence of the notability of these TV programmes? There is no indication of channel: was it national/local? There is no indication of the level of the subject's participation (note that the first two are about artists plural). These could just be passing glimpes/voxpop of the subject as one of several/many. AllyD (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARTIST #4.b "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". The exhibitions are listed in the French Wikipedia[2] some verifiable through catalogs (primary but suitable for verification purposes on something like this). Most of this artist's career happened before material was regularly put online so it would require access to offline french sources which I don't believe anyone at AfD will be able to provide. Based on the available evidence we do have, and assuming good faith the French Wikipedia information is not an outright lie (see no evidence for it) I think it would do more harm than good to delete this artist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the exhibitions cited in the .fr article do not appear to be at all significant. One of his paintings was bought by the French government and hung in a city administrative office. Most of the "exhibitions" are at small or regional shows, or in commercial galleries and artist's co-ops. My French is only fair to middling, so I might have missed something, and not every exhibition listed on the .fr site showed up in Google (and I tried French Google searches too), but there's nothing at all so far that I have seen that indicates he meets any of the notability guidelines for this Wikipedia. It's worth noting that having an article on the .fr Wikipedia isn't an indication of passing the notability guidelines of en.wikipedia; I have no idea what the inclusion guidelines are at fr. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My French is also middling, as is my experience with the French art world and galleries, so it would be a good idea to err on the side of caution and not cause damage by deleting a possibly notable artist, which seems quite plausible given multiple lines of evidence. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's sufficient information, and I am not willing to delete an article about a French artist with an article in the frWP, , unless there is some indication the article is promotional or inappropriate--and that will be quite rare, because they have at least as high standards in such matters as the enWP does, and in my opinion, apply them more consistently. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al Tamimi Investments

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

Promotional article that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The article has many sources, mostly press releases. Sources 1, 13, 20-22 are passing mentions/no mentions. ALL of the remaining sources are self-authored, e.g., press releases or company's own website. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional, doesn't meet notability guidelines. Coretheapple (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but an ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear advertisement by a paid editor across sock accounts.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StopAfib

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

Promotional article that fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Article has lots of sources that do not establish notability. Sources 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12,15, and 17 are self-authored. Sources 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 16 are passing mentions. Google News search mainly turned up press releases. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, submitted by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, which is technically enough reason to delete it right now. DS (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree: Jacob Pabst and the sockmaster only got blocked after these edits were made, and we should think twice before applying G5 retrospectively, because it's framed in terms of block/ban evasion - how can somebody contravene a block or ban which does not yet exist? bobrayner (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as spam. bobrayner (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG and is a clear advertisement by a paid editor across sock accounts.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atif Ali Khan

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

Fails our notability criteria. Sources are a gossip column, one of our articles that mentions his father, one which is basically comprised of quotes from him and 'Popbluster' which speculates on what he might be doing in the future. His "MBA" and "Doctorate" are from unaccredited institutions. Finally, this is created by a self-acknowledged freelancer and given the other articles created by the editor (and deleted) this seems to be another example of paid editing. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Paid editing or not, there is no evidence of notability, and this article, like others created by the same editor, clearly exists essentially to promote the career of the person who is its subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability standard for musicians or the GNG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One press release is never enough to satisfy WP:NMUSIC, NN. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability, veiled advert. Full disclosure, I originally patrolled this page and had nominated it for CSD and added maintenance tags, seems as if many of the maintenance tags were preemptively removed. Sorry for not keeping a better eye on it. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information: I have requested that the early history of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atif Ali Khan be merged into ~~Ali Khan~~ Atif Ali Khan for attribution purposes. The original creator of the page was a non-logged-in editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Corrected per JamesBWatson's note below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That should say Atif Ali Khan, not Ali Khan. However, the history merge has been done. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information on his page is incorrect and with no valid proof. He has again created on freelancing websites to save this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.178.100.18 (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Orator (Cicero). SarahStierch (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delectare

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

non-notable dictionary definition Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Orator (Cicero), which I take it from the cited source is the work in which "docere, delectare, et movere" appeared. Cnilep (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 14:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Orator (Cicero). This term appears in rhetoric studies, e.g. [3], [4], primarily in the context of Cicero's three functions of a rhetorician. I cannot find in-depth sources to support a standalone article (although there are probably many offline sources about Cicero and rhetoric), but per WP:PRESERVE, we should preserve clearly verifiable information. I agree that Orator (Cicero) looks like a good merge target. --Mark viking (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - does not warrant stand along treatment but I am not sure if it should be to Orator (Cicero) or De Oratore - the source on the page cites both as follows: 82. De optimo genere oratorum, I, 3; Orator, 69; De oratore, II, 28. But the first source, Mark Viking listed above only cites Cicero, de Oratore 2.128 However our article on De Oratore (which is a better article ) does not include the phrase anywhere, so might need some more work ... Depthdiver (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WADND

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

Non-notable organization and/or website. The entire article is unsourced. The WADND website has one page, looks like it hasn't been updated in several years. Minimal useful information in google (this article is result #5). In 6 years, there have been about 20 edits to this article, almost all of them routine procedural updates. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. I found a couple brief mentions involving lawsuit against ICANN and VeriSign. Some press releases. A trade group for a nascent "industry". Looks like an attempt to put a legitimate face on domain squatting (though it's a fine line and often hard to prove - and not always the case). I would want to see solid sources considering the line of business - they will surely attract serious criticism if notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Pough

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

The article makes no assertion of notability. Keith Pough was an undrafted free agent who was released before playing a single snap of professional football. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and there is no non-trivial coverage. There are dozens of such prospective NFL players every year and they aren't notable for being on the preseason team. Further, as an article about a player not in the news (because he's not playing) it's not being updated. At the time I encountered the article on October 23 it still claimed he played for Buffalo, even though he'd been released nearly two months ago. After fixing the references I proposed the article for deletion; the article's author removed the PROD tag on October 29 with a minor edit (no edit summary). That's his right but it's unhelpful. In sum, it's a non-notable stub with no prospect of expansion. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is information about this player on the internet. I am at the moment refraining from voting to delete this article, only to see whether someone comes up with compelling evidence to keep it. As I see it, this player has not done enough to merit an article of his own. If and when he does more notable things, then an article would be in order. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and any secondary coverage I can find seems to be WP:ROUTINE Sulfurboy (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the above assessment says it all. There really is nothing notable at this time about this article. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ I'm will Bill for now. I'm finding a lot of stuff, but it appears to be local coverage or press releases from his school. I did find a secodn team all-American FCS division, which is considered a "national award" and a good number of these smaller publications that are quoting him. He doesn't pass WP:GRIDIRON but I could see a strong argument for WP:GNG. Oh, and the article does make an assertion of notability--not a very good one, but it is there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep per research from Phightins! below. Nice work.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lots of coverage from the Washington Post and also the Charlotte Post ([5][6][7][8]) which, though that would be the local newspaper, still is one of the largest newspapers in America in terms of circulation. As such, I would think he meets GNG. Go Phightins! 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My Highbeam subscription has lapsed. Are you able to read the article and indicate the nature of the coverage? Or, better, improve the article with that information? Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - I researched into the four articles mentioned by Phightins!. I could not pin anything down on the Charlotte Post, since Highbeam only lets you go so far without signing up. I tried looking at the newspaper itself online, but could not locate the article, although it obviously exists. I did look at the Washington Post online and found a number of articles that at least mentioned Keith Pough. It seems the question that needs answered is whether Keith Pough's history is notable enough to warrant an article. I am willing to change my vote, but I want to hear a bit more about whether he is notable by Wikipedia standards. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles, I would say, offer non-trivial coverage, though Pough is undoubtedly not the main part of the article. I will do some more careful reading in hopes of extrapolating worthy information from the article in the next few days. Should I forget, please ping me on my talk page, as I will likely be busy tomorrow and Saturday, and am likely to forget. Go Phightins! 02:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He appears to be one of hundreds of former college players who fails to make it to the NFL every year. Nothing notable there, or in the fact that he fails both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Mdtemp (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Dangerfield

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

The article makes no assertion of notability. Jordan Dangerfield was an undrafted free agent who was released before playing a single snap of professional football. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and there is no non-trivial coverage. There are dozens of such prospective NFL players every year and they aren't notable for being on the preseason team. Further, as an article about a player not in the news (because he's not playing) it's not being updated. At the time I encountered the article on October 23 it still claimed he played for Buffalo, even though he'd been released nearly two months ago. After fixing the references I proposed the article for deletion; the article's author removed the PROD tag on October 29 with a minor edit (no edit summary). That's his right but it's unhelpful. In sum, it's a non-notable stub with no prospect of expansion. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and any secondary coverage I can find seems to be WP:ROUTINE. In the future, Mackensen, you may want to have grouped these three athletes together since the circumstances for their AfD are nearly identical. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I chose not too on purpose; I've never been a big fan of group deletions. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article does assert notability. I'm finding widespread coverage for his college playing career and should be enough to pass WP:GNG. References should be added to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Paul McDonald, could you point to some of these sources that you found that aren't WP:ROUTINE in case someone wanted to improve the article? Because I couldn't find any... Sulfurboy (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Gaskins

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

The article makes no assertion of notability. Kendall Gaskins was an undrafted free agent who was released before playing a single snap of professional football. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and there is no non-trivial coverage. There are dozens of such prospective NFL players every year and they aren't notable for being on the preseason team. Further, as an article about a player not in the news (because he's not playing) it's not being updated. At the time I encountered the article on October 23 it still claimed he played for Buffalo, even though he'd been released nearly two months ago. After fixing the references I proposed the article for deletion; the article's author removed the PROD tag on October 29 with a minor edit (no edit summary). That's his right but it's unhelpful. In sum, it's a non-notable stub with no prospect of expansion. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and any secondary coverage I can find seems to be WP:ROUTINE Sulfurboy (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that WP:GRIDIRON is not met, but I believe the subject passes WP:GNG due to the significant amount of coverage for his college career found here. Some of it is routine box scores, but many of them provide much more detail and clearly are beyond the scope of WP:ROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been reading through these results and most really are just the variety of "Gaskins ran for an 11-yard TD" or "Gaskins punched it in" which I'd expect from any write-up. What I'm looking for is an article that actually discusses Gaskins. Here's on about him being named Second Team All-CAA, which isn't all that impressive. That being said, he's bouncing around practice squads again (just released by the Titans, NYG is giving him a look). Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even that is beyond the scope of WP:ROUTINE. It's clearly more than just sports scores, plus there is a lot of coverage. In this ESPN article, he's the lead mention in the article. Other examples are Gaskins helps Richmond rout Gardner-Webb 41-8 and Gaskins leads Richmond past William & Mary 17-10 and Gaskins, unbeaten Richmond rally past Towson 42-14 from The Sporting News.--Paul McDonald (talk)

That's still just game coverage though. None of these articles are about him; they're recaps of games in which he's played a role. I don't think that's the standard we're supposed to apply. Put another way, there's nothing we can take from these articles to improve our article, save that he played in these football games and scored touchdowns. He's a running back; we'd expect him to do so. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's far above routine sports coverage. When the subject's name is in the title, it's clearly not routine. Besides, it's far and away above routine reporting of sports scores. See essay WP:NOTROUTINE for more info.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That definition of routine doesn't take into the fact that every Division I football game gets recapped at this point. If every game is recapped, with text, then that's by definition routine. Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every United States Presidential Election is recapped in print too. By your definition, that's routine. I could argue that every noteworthy event gets routine news coverage. Should we delete everything on Wikipedia? "Too much news coverage" is generally used to say a subject is notable, not that it is not notable. Wikipedia is not about nothing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gaskins has been in the news quite recently for tryouts with the GIants and Titans (where he was briefly on the practice squad). I think it's too soon for deletion. Let's see how things play out. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Being invited to tryouts with a bunch of others does not show notability--hundreds try out every year for each NFL team.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 17:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aeryon Scout

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

No assertion of notability, and no independent nor reliable sources. Article is basically an ad, and more seem to be on its way at Articles for Creation. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article is very spammy and reads like it was written by the manufacturer's PR department, the cited refs do establish notability. The one cited Wall Street Journal ref does not mention the Scout and the Globe and Mail ref is no longer available, but the CNet and CBC articles cited discuss the Scout and do establish notability. There are probably paper refs available on the subject too, such as Janes All The World's Aircraft. It does need a complete re-write however.- Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems to feature a bunch of dead links, but there does seem to be coverage of the thing on the web, including coverage of its use by various governmental agencies. As per Ahunt, this should be a candidate for major rewrite, rather than deletion. — daranz [ t ] 23:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For some reason this thing looks awfully familiar, but as noted the concern is promotion; this calls for cleanup, not deletion, and AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Orme

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

The article was created as an unreferenced stub in 2007. It remaines unreferenced, failing notability to this day. Furthermore, this edit introduced the bulk of the article's current content and it is blatant original research, exacerbated by the first person prose that make it read as an unencyclopedic autobiography. The article requires a complete rewriting, if notability can be ascertained; I do not see the subject as notable and do not even see a credible claim that would preclude this from csd-a7 deletion. —John Cline (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the sources added and the comments below, I am convinced that the article's subject is notable. Furthermore, collaborative editing has rendered the article to stub class, acceptable for Wikipedia inclusion. Therefor I am withdrawing my suggestion to delete this article, amending my !vote to keep and improve.—John Cline (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would meet A7 requirements. I personally could not locate any secondary coverage and the article would require a complete rewrite even if there were an allusive source or two. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep I'm finding him noted in various secondary sources. The ones that appear to have substantial coverage I can't access. But he seems to have some notability. The article can be cleaned up without much difficulty. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will you list two or three of the secondary sources you believe may have substantial coverage, which you stated were unavailable for you? Perhaps I or another can help cite the source if it is shown; to be known. Then yes, the rewrite could be accomplished without much difficulty. I am still in doubt that this subject will meet the reasonable threshold of wp:gng, but will gladly consider any source that bears on a fair consideration.—John Cline (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response. Many of his books have been reviewed extensively in Books for Keeps. I was not familiar with that source so I discussed it with another editor user:DGG (see his talk page), and have concluded that it is a reliable source. I have also created the Wikipedia article on it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom has also identified some good sources covering the author and his work (see below). Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- an author with 250 books is extremely prolific, even if they are all school text books. People will like to know about the author. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews in reliable sources.

Book reviews

McKenzie, John. "Discover Earth's Secrets: How our Planet was Formed, Shaped and Continuously Changes." Reading Time. Nov 2012, Vol. 56 Issue 4, p42-42. Abstract: The article reviews the book "Discover Earth's Secrets: How Our Planet Was Formed, Shaped and Continuously Changes," by David Orme and Helen Orme.
Wildner, Kristine. "Space Launch!" Library Media Connection. Nov2007, Vol. 26 Issue 3, p90-90. Abstract: The article reviews several books including "Let's Explore Comets and Asteroids," "Let's Explore Earth," and "Let's Explore the Moon," by Helen Orme and David Orme.
Glantz, Shelley. "Billy Blaster." Library Media Connection. Oct2009, Vol. 28 Issue 2, p77-77. Abstract: The article reviews several books by David Orme, including "Billy Blaster," "Ice Caves of Pluto" and "Mind Thief."
Goldstein, Lisa. "Ice Caves of Pluto/Mind Thief." School Library Journal. May2009, Vol. 55 Issue 5, p135-135. Abstract: The article presents reviews of the books "Ice Caves of Pluto" and "Mind Thief," both by David Orme.
"Keystone Books." Library Media Connection. Oct2006, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p70-70. Abstract: The article reviews the book "Keystone Books: Space Pirates," by David Orme.
Manning, Patricia. "Giant Panda/Orangutan/Asian Elephant." School Library Journal. Aug2005, Vol. 51 Issue 8, p142-142. Abstract: Reviews several books. "Giant Panda," by Anna Claybourne; "Orangutan," by David Orme; "Asian Elephant," by Matt Turner.
Mark, Jan. "Are you spooking me?" Times Educational Supplement. 1/14/2005, Issue 4617, TES first appointments p54-54. Abstract: Reviews several books for children. "A Gift for the King," by Damian Harvey; "The Thirsty Moose," by David Orme; "The Story House," by Vivian French; Others.
Harcombe, Kevin. "Write from the start." Times Educational Supplement. 9/26/2003, Issue 4551, TES Teacher p26-27. Abstract: Reviews several books for children. 'Grammar for Literacy,' by David Orme; 'Improving Literacy: Creative Approaches,' by Alan Peat; 'Key to Writing,' by Christine Moorcroft and Les Ray Letts; 'Write Away!,' Huw Jones and Adelaide Kelly.
Scott, Angel. "Net English (Book Review)." Times Educational Supplement. 05/25/2001, Issue 4430, English p17. Abstract: Reviews the book 'net English,' by David Orme and James Sale.
Clarke, Gillian. "Early delights." Times Educational Supplement. 01/16/98, Issue 4255, TES Friday p15. Abstract: Reviews a number of books which includes `Anthology for the Earth,' edited by Judy Allen, `Dear Future: Time Capsule of Poems,' selected by David Orme, `Say That Again,' edited by Mairwen Jones and John Spink et al.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although I sympathize with the sentiments regarding "dumbing down" voiced by Sitush, the sources found by Green Cardamom clearly tilt this over the bar of WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faraaz Kazi

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

None of the provided links are retrievable except the social networking sites one. One book wonder can not be a notable person.Ananyaprasad (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu, Mumbai Mirror and his official website are all spam Ananyaprasad (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is a two-time national-award winner plus the only Indian to win the Goodreads readers' choice award. The Hindu link seems to have expired. Here's the article link, the newspaper seems to have refreshed its links: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/high-on-feelings/article2085857.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naaz86 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'best known for his debut novel Truly Madly Deeply' what does it mean? If he is best known for this novel, where are his other works? Has he written only book and is on Wikipedia? Social networking sites and blog posts are not accepted here Ananyaprasad (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see/check the second link. It is a repetition and not working. Fix it Ananyaprasad (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an awful lot of mirroring going on. Can anyone find primary source mentions for the various awards? Are they even notable awards? - Sitush (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. The awards are non-notable. However there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per GNG:

"High on feelings", The Hindu, June 8, 2011
"Even Chetan Bhagat is cashing in on publicity: Faraaz Kazi", Mumbai Mirror, September 2, 2011
"'Truly Madly Deeply' a coming-of-age romcom", IBN Live, August 29, 2011
"Romancing the reader", Shillong Times, March 10, 2013. Quote: "Kazi is rated amongst the top romance writers in India."
"Lime Light: Bookmark", The Telegraph (Calcutta), December 30 , 2012 Quote: "Kazi also runs a promotions agency for authors and artists."
"‘Can’t call it a masala entertainer’", The New Indian Express, 6 June 2011
"The Lovey-Dovey Boys", OPEN magazine. 21 April 2012. Quote: "The author, who is also an MBA and a triple post-graduate with a Masters in Psychology and Human Resources.."

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) The links seem to be good enough. Actually what was put earlier was fluffy. Now the links are commendableAnanyaprasad (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Quote: "Kazi also runs a promotions agency for authors and artists." is disturbing. If he is running any agency then very easy for him to come on newspapers- as when he can do for others, doing for himself will be no big deal!Ananyaprasad (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the new stuff is just PR nonsense but, hey, it is becoming apparent to me that those involved in modern literature subjects on Wikipedia really do not care less about standards. It really seems to be heading to the point of "well, they've published a book and a newspaper has mentioned it, so that's ok then". Another sad-but-true example of the dumbing-down process and of the way the project is being manipulated by fans and paid advocates. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage in sources located by Green Cardamom establish notability. Not sure why Sitush thinks they are "just PR nonsense", the oens I looked at appeared quite legitimate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Thomson, Stella Vine, and the Stuckists

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

Oddly-scoped article about how two artists were "married briefly" while being part of the same art movement; plenty of interview sources of them talking about their marriage, but seemingly nothing to frame "Person X, Person Y and Art Movement Z" as a significant standalone subject. Content should abbreviated and split between Charles Thomson and Stella Vine, with the same weight that any marriage gets - the Stuckism already covers enough of the couple's impact on the group. McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything of note into Charles Thomson and Stella Vine, as the nominator suggests. This article was next on my 'hit list' after Charitable work by Stella Vine, being another bloated over-detailed synthesised content fork of the Stella Vine article. She's definitely a notable artist but certainly not notable enough to justify these mega essays! Sionk (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rubbish that misrepresents Vine (favourably) and her opponents (badly). Some of it is sourced to primary sources (including Thompson and the Stuckists) and some to broken links, but where available secondary sources are often misrepresented, failing to acknowledge criticisms of Vine or to present the POVs of her opponents, while blowing up passing mentions into claims of great artistic significance. For instance, her accusation that Saatchi was engaging in anticompetitive practices is presented in a very one-sided way, quoting only Stuckists and ex-Stuckists, despite WP:BLP issues. Sarcastic praise is quoted as genuine praise, and abuse is ignored. Hence, it badly fails WP:NPOV. If there is any encyclopedic content, then POV and referencing issues can be fixed by editing, but this is trivia and gossip. For another example, the fact that her ex-husband includes her in a list of artists who the Tate overlooked, published on a dubiously-WP:RS website[9], is hardly worth writing about. And nor does every bon mot of Vine and Thompson deserve immortality. If anyone is bothered to extract the iota of legitimate content and merge it, fine, but deletion is more realistic for this non-notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly there are already substantial sections in Charles Thomson and Stella Vine about the marriage and subsequent spats. There's probably not much else that needs to be added. It's difficult to know who is being misrepresented, if anyone. Their views on the issues seem to be polar opposites! Sionk (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is original research, pasting together reliable sources emphasizing certain things and telling a narrative that may or may not result in a POV. It could be a signed magazine or newspaper article, a chapter in a book. The article creator User:Madeofstars has not logged in since 2010, but from 2008 to 2010 put a lot of time and effort on a group of articles around Stella Vine. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I hadn't registered it when AfDing, but another way of saying "made of stars" would be "stellar". Madeofstars briefly claimed to be a "big fan" of Vine and seems quite personally involved,. I'll flag the main Stella Vine article as having probable COI issues. --McGeddon (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. Subject meets WP:CRIN, no sense debating this further. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anagha Deshpande

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

NO notable links for notability- not even a single one. 2 sources are from Wikipedia which does not have the players name in it Ananyaprasad (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. This is a poor-faith nomination, seemingly in retaliation for the deletion of an article created by the nominator. (There is some discussion of this here). The two sources that are provided are not circular references, are published by reliable websites that are used on thousands of cricket-related articles and clearly indicate that this is an international sportswoman who has represented her country at first-class level. It satisfies the WP:ATHLETE criteria. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:CRIN - does have a couple of reliable independent sources. Nomination looks like an error? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had nominated two articles at the same time but I just wonder why all present to delete Rashmi Singh author have jumped here and not at Faraaz Kazi? Now what is this? What does this suggest? Good faith? No one has peeped into the other one. I am not saying that Anagha D is not notable but Faraaz Kazi has all spam! Will you all move from here and spare some time to check it! Ananyaprasad (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this one purely because it popped up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Article alerts. I'm not too interested in any other point you are making elsewhere! If you now agree this person is notable, are you withdrawing this AfD? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not entirely sure why this was nominated, a quick read of WP:CRIN shows the cricketer is clearly notable. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments already made above, clearly meets our notability criteria. Harrias ^talk 22:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2013 (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/2013 October 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to easily meet WP:CRIN.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smokin Jo

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

Highly promotional and non-notable. It should be noted that both sources are self submitted articles. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not self submitted by the artist herself (PROVE IT), the interview with the Guardian Newspaper journalist is in a (NOTABLE) UK newspaper hence the inclusion, also as she is one of the original DJ's of Trade nightclub it was an extremely important and influential gay club in Gay London during the 1990's which also influenced a lot of other gay business's throughout the UK during this time.

The 'weekender' articles are just profiles of random people in different aspects of life (one day will be a teacher, the next a student, a dog walker, etc.)and, as the note at the bottom of the article would suggest, you must submit the picture and information yourself. Yes, the guardian is a credible source, but I've seen these weekender articles successfully rejected more than once(if another editor could point out an example it'd be appreciated). I'm not sure what you're talking about in the second part of your comment, but it seems as if any suggested notability there would be completely dependent on that nightclub. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the concept and artistic output of the TRADE brand nationally and globally influenced and changed the direction of a gay subculture certainly in the UK, the relevance of a page for an original artist performing, working, and influencing creative direction at Trade the club and company was huge. --Navops47 (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but due to rude comments left on my talk page I have no interest in discussing this with you anymore, as I feel I would not be able to stay neutral or remain calm. If other editor's need me to clarify on something specific about this afd, please let me know. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other editors the sources are not self submitted talk states they are self submitted dialogue's by the artist yet he has not provided one single shred evidence to back up this claim.--Navops47 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The Grauniad piece is just the sort of piece that conveys notability for a DJ. It's not solely self-submitted, it has some follow-up and an interview with a journo. However there's only one of them and it's very lightweight. The DJ Mag award might swing it too, but there's no detail in this article or sourcing to support it. The tone of this article is way overboard, "one of the most creative and distinctive" and yet there's nothing to back this up. The world is full of DJs, even ones who get to play Cream or MoS, "none of the DJs was female" is just plain wrong and there's no indication that Smokin Jo really meets the level of encyclopedic notability we need (and yes, that applies to almost all of the minor rappers on WP too).

I'm prepared to be swung to a keep instead, but this article isn't doing it as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I edited it considerably and found another source, but still not quite convinced she's notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Although the initial piece was a little thin, I have added her discography, she also worked for BBC Radio 1 for a few years which I think is notable! You do not just get on a national radio station by being one of many average DJ's. Clearly it still needs some work! I have included additional citations --111.223.131.168 (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on the barest most minimal evidence of notability. Several cited mentions, but I'd very much like to see secondary coverage that really shows the "significant subject" part of notability. If this comes up for deletion again in the next year without such a strong citation, I'd say delete it then.-Markeer 23:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Queen's Nose. Wifione ^Message 17:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony Parker

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No claim of notability, no sign of notability; the only review I could find was a single user review on ~~Amazon~~ IMDB. Nat Gertler (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find secondary sources to even begin to suggest notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and Restore page as redirect to The Queen's Nose, an article covering a work of fiction that includes a character by this name. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with that restore request. -Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPMI International business school

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

May fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG SarahStierch (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears to be a degree-giving institution, possibly in partnership with others (for example their website claims links with Kellogg School of Management); does that not usually come close to a presumed keep? AllyD (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies alternate criteria via Wikipedia:NSCHOOL#Schools. A large overhaul or deletion of superfluous or non-encyclopedic information is certainly needed, though.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Degree-giving institutions are automatically notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We keep articles on all verifiable degree-granting institutions of higher learning. There isnlt that much here that is actually superfluous--a list of Presidents of the school is appropriate content, and so is a list of degrees offered. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pontins. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pontins Southport

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

Appears to fail WP:ORG. Perhaps a merge, or just delete. the Pontins article seems to cover anything important and I don't know why we need an article about this specific park when the others don't even have their own! SarahStierch (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pontins. Some information from the history section (if I can be paired with a proper citation) would be constructive for the main article, but the rest is either promotional or fluff. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Others of the same company don't have separate articles, but some of those belonging to other companies do, and there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duporth Holiday Village which appears to be for a similar type of place and the article was kept (although others have been deleted). Unless there's improvement in article content and sourcing, it should be redirected to Ainsdale - for precedent see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin Forest. Peter James (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The scale of these facilities is substantial. It may be that we should have articles on its sibling camps, and those of its rival Butlins. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mr Floppy. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Unbearable Lightness of Being a Dickhead

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

Unable to find any reliable secondary sources online easily. I think this should just be deleted and merged into the Mr. Floppy article. The article itself appears to be entirely original research. If multiple reliable sources can be added, fabulous, if not, delete or perhaps merge. SarahStierch (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important document in the history of Australian punk. Fokker T I SM 05:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? If you've got good sources that say that, then it might be keepable.--Colapeninsula (talk)

Delete Fails Wikipedia:NALBUMS#Recordings and the beginning of the article seems to be a copy paste from here. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Mr. Floppy. Plenty of room int he parent article to cover this subject if it's not independently notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are currently no reliable sources at Mr Floppy, so merging might be premature. I suggest if people feel this interesting-sounding act deserves any Wikipedia coverage, they try to save the main Mr Floppy article, because the articles on their other recordings, Firm and Fruity, 100 000 Morrisseys, Breakfast (Mr Floppy album), and Gratuitous (album), are totally lacking in reliable sources and quite likely non-notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice - it did well at the time and there's plenty of sources from the time (which I remember), but they're all on paper so unlikely to be brought up in the next week - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this is, in fact, an important item in the history of Australian punk, it would be extremely easy to verify since a book or article about Australian punk would mention it. As it looks like there's some question about the notability of the artists page as well, just delete this for now and work on sourcing that page. If that article is significantly improved and sourced, there may be room for more detail, but that's after, not now.-Markeer 00:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice – It was mentioned in Australian independent music press of the time, unfortunately much of that material is not on-line nor easily accessible.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice - I'm sure that as indicated above that at the time of its release the album was subject to independent comment/review. It is clear that the band and their recordings had some influence on other Melbourne bands. Considerable work has been done by various editors on improving the Mr Floppy improving and sourcing information contained therein. Dan arndt (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 17:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of Slides

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

No significant coverage in reputable publications for a fear of slides as a topic. "toboganaphobia" claim seems to be a hoax. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clear G3 candidate. Should be speedy deleted. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search shows that some children do have this fear, whether in playgrounds or water parks, but the search results are mostly forums and it is not discussed in reliable sources (the closest I got was[10] which isn't really an irrational fear). Hence, not notable unless someone can find much better sources. And the current article is jokey nonsense so it would need a total rewrite. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious jokey nonsense, not even a proper hoax. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This seems legitimate. There aren't many resources on the topic because it is a fairly new discovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skb1235990493 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:LINKSPAM by article Shirt58 (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Download Youtube Video Using 3 Different Methods

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

Pretty much per the contested proposed deletion: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. No reliable independent sources.

See the related article Download youtube videos and AfD for article. Editor appears to be a single-purpose account here to advertise a particular piece of software. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopaedic instruction manual on downloading. WP is not Answers.com. (BTW, I just restored the AfD tag on the article itself. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article author has a habit of removing AfD and TfD notices. I warned the editor again about removal of deletion templates. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with above justification and would suggest this is in fact a strong candidate for CSD. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 17:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Stavrakis

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

Notability relies on a redlinked film produced by subject. I cannot find any sources that do not have at least some direct affiliation with the subject. Bypassed CSD since article 'claims' notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial covreage in reliable independent sources. Too soon. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nawlinwiki deleted his article on the movie he wrote as its a hoax.--Stemoc (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 17:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic teachings on pacifism and Just War

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

This is a very nice essay but it is almost entirely original research - interpretations of Catholic Church Catechism without any real outside commentary. There are probably a good many books that deal with the Church's attitude toward war and peace but that doesn't make it a suitable topic for an encyclopedic article. Theoretically we could create articles about the Church's attitude toward a wide range of things ("strife" is just one of fifteen listed in a list which ends with "...and the like"). In the end, we already have articles on pacifism and Just War and the many conflicts in which the Catholic Church has been involved. Stalwart111 03:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although claims are sourced, the conclusions reached are WP:OR. A further concern I have not previously mentioned is that this article attempts to group the myriad of thoughts and beliefs of the catholic church into one static policy. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate topic to Just war theory, which is largely about Roman Catholic theology. No need for a separate article. Merge might be possible, but some of it seems questionable interpretation and/or original research. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you check the sources, you'll see I took word-for-word verses from the Catechism, only paraphrased. Silly comments about Church attitude and policy aside, I agree it should be merged with the just war theory article, so long as the section Just War Doctrine isn't attacked for being about a Church Doctrine - because that's what it is; it's not a theory, it's a Doctrine according to the Church herself. Hence, any reinterpretation of Doctrine as "policy" or "ideology" is anti-catholic, whereas Wikipedia is neutral. Oct13 (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reproducing church doctrine without comment or criticism is hardly neutral! You need criticism and interpretation. If we wanted merely the text of church documents, we could read the original documents not a paraphrase. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR essay that also attempts to cover topic of an existing article. Title not really usable as a search topic for redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:OR essay, based on primary sources. I hope that the author will contribute to the Just War article, but it would be best to start fresh, rather than merging. -- 101.119.15.173 (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 video game emulators. No substantial coverage establishing independent notability. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gens (emulator)

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

Article has been tagged for notability issues for years, and a recent back and forth over redirecting it suggested that maybe (a second) AfD is in order. I looked at the first one, and while it offers words in support it doesn't offer anything in the way of reliable sources. In the end, there's nothing more (that I can find) than what's already in the article--a paragraph or two in a book on retro gaming and a supposed award. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gens is a product that was first developed in 1999, and it has various sources, including a Google books. I cannot find any though... --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 02:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you--I rest my case. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be honest, I now realized I cannot find anything... not even the sources it links to. I change my vote to Delete (seriously...) --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 02:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It happens frequently that something is tagged as non-notable but there's plenty of sources. It also happens that an AfD says there are sources but doesn't produce any, and then later the sources are provided. This is just not one of those instances, and that's why a redirect was a good solution, per Red Phoenix, a seasoned editor in this area whose redirect made sense to me. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of video game emulators or to Sega Genesis. Although there is no inherent notability of the subject, I could see it possibly being a search term, especially since it has been a long-standing article. If nothing else, a redirect preserves the page history and the search term instead of leading to "Wikipedia does not have a page for...". I do know it has a parenthetical in the title, but it's certainly not unheard of as a search term. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article that may meet notability on software, just needs more improvements on some text and add some reliable sources. ///EuroCarGT 02:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "May" and "does" are two different things. Can you establish its notability to meet WP:GNG? As this AFD is unlikely to be speedy closed in light of this keep, there should be about a week's worth of time where that opportunity will be available. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, yes. Eurocar, I see your usually sensible reverts all over the place, but this is about content and sources. The burden is on you to prove that the sourcing that establishes notability exists--otherwise, you don't have an argument. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there is no sources, at all, and hasn't been for a very long time. I actually tried to look, and despite being from 1999, there hasn't been for years... --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 11:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a reference (the O'Reilly book). NE Ent 11:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In which there is little more than a passing mention that it exists. This does not demonstrate "substantial coverage" as required by WP:GNG. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 12:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of video game emulators. I can't find any sources, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 17:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pick-Up Sticks (novel)

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

No extensive coverage in independent nor reliable sources, therefore non-notable. Fails WP:NBOOK. This comes from a declined AfC submission and subsequent move to mainspace, hence is non-conformant to the AfC process. There it should remain until the editor's made appropriate changes and a reviewer takes another look. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NBOOK via criterion two of Wikipedia:BKCRIT#Criteria. Plot summary and character summary list should be largely reduced, though. I have placed the appropriate maintenance tag accordingly. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and prune plot, per Sulfurboy. If this has indeed won critical acclaim and the Governor General's Award, then it passes notability. However it needs sourcing to demonstrate this.

No opposition from me to moving it back into AfC space, but I don't see a pressing need for it either. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added 2 more references to reviews, and references for the Governor's General award. Appears to be widely reviewed, and has received a significant award. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NBOOK multiple book reviews. Big award winning books usually get lots of reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Herald

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

I do not see any evidence for notability, beyond the absurd "one of the top50,000 websites in the UK" . The great majority of the contributors listed do not seem notable.

Unwisely accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one passing mention of one of their stories at The Guardian but nothing else that wasn't primary sourcing. While recognising that media organisations are unlikely to give publicity to competitors, this really needs some tangible recognition to establish notability and I am not seeing it, so at best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly needs improvement - I had thought some others were going to chip in with this, post-listing, but obviously not... (Note I wrote the original article, but it looks to have been edited a little since then). I will have a good go through it this week. Re "mentions" there are a number of academic references; University and media mentions (mainly in journals) that I know of - will attempt to drag them out. There are also a few institutional connections from things like academic conferences. Re "notable contributors" this needs a LOT of updating! I do think that Professors at well respected Universities are notable, however. Many of them have WP listings in their own right. This needs updating too. Will attempt to add info based on contributors and the institutional sources / citations that are publically accessible. Agree on the "top 50,000" part! But this seems like something for edit rather than deletion (subject to significant re-writing)? Also note that I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia references and etc, though I have read a fair chunk of the manual, so please let me know if I've missed something here. There is some good stuff published at The Global Herald and it is increasing in scholarly content of late - it might be too soon, but I'd suggest a stay of execution at least until some of the more noteworthy content & contributors are properly referenced. --Streamreader (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC) - so to clarify: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." from Deletion Policy, Alternatives to Deletion (here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ATD#Alternatives_to_deletion ). It is my belief that editing will improve this page. Further, I also believe that the "evidence for notability" is precisely this second reason given for the suggested deletion: the person who feels deletion is appropriate does not know (because of a lack of citation) that the people within the list are notable. I happen to know several are, and a quick look through the list here: http://theglobalherald.com/editors-contributors/ would suggest notability, were the list correctly referenced? --Streamreader (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested remedies

1) There is no evidence for notability - the "50,000" reference has been removed from the article. Agree it adds nothing. --Streamreader (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2) There is no evidence for notability & the great majority of the contributors listed do not seem notable - those contributors listed without Wikilinks I will (attempt to) find a citation as to notability (secondary sources). If none can be established, the contributor shall be removed. Following that, the decision can be made without resorting to the current need for guesswork! In doing so, this would be adding "evidence of notability". --Streamreader (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3) Also will attempt to find some of the more cutting edge articles. I can remember a couple which really tied together a lot of contemporary thinking - there will probably be a lot of cross-referencing here to do, so will take a little longer. (help!?) --Streamreader (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning this up - exactly what was needed. --Streamreader (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure your enthusiasm is appreciated, Streamreader. However, the idea that we should give a 'stay of execution' or wait for the article to become notable is unacceptable. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON, and may even be a case of never will be notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- not sure if this is how to reply?! But I'm not "asking you to wait until something becomes notable (sic)". I am saying that it is notable, but that this notability is not, currently, clear from the (lack of) references in the listing itself. I have attempted to add some of these. All of these people are "notable" and there are pages detailing their notability at specific sections of University / Organisation / Institutional websites. Just a quick Google (or Wikipedia) search for them tells me that. This will only take a little time; hence needs re-writing before the decision to delete / keep? And I thought, having read the AfD text, that the 7 day period here is precisely that, a stay of execution, or am I missing something? --Streamreader (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cleaned-up and condensed Streamreader's comments. Streamreader, you should also make a point to state when you are the author of an article in an AfD discussion.

Have added this disclosure. Apologies, I thought it was listed here (I got an email about the move to AfD and revisited this listing for the first time in a lot of months today) --Streamreader (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think I have established a little why there is even a debate surrounding this. I had a quick look at WP:PROF and would like to make a comment. While some teachers at academic institutions are known as professors, just being "a faculty member" at a University does NOT make someone a Professor. Professorship is the highest "rank" in the academic world. It is used (where I wrote it in the original article) in that sense. In fact, the existence of this sentence "Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities." Is highly questionable over at WP:PROF, as it points to the (inaccurate?) conclusion that a faculty member is automatically a professor. Perhaps they are in some academic institutions; no Institution I am aware of operates such a system, however. --Streamreader (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Going through some old discussions on this subject, some editors suggest that the number of citations a person has received should be used as a metric. Not so, I argue, for Professorship is a statement of fact. A Professorship is a title bestowed by Academic Institutions. It is, therefore, peer reviewed at the time of issuance. You might only be able to find 100 citations in Google Scholar, but Google is not, alas, a panacea. When someone is made a Professor, usually after 15+ years working (and teaching) at a highly advanced level, this is recognised by the title Professor before their name. When I have used this, it is in this context. I understand that some of this discussion could go on forever, and should be taking place in the talk section at WP:PROF. Understand that where I have named someone "Professor" it is because I believe them to have achieved a named Chair.[reply]

- Additionally, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor - note European definition of "Professor". This is the cause of this ambiguity, and, indeed, debate on "notability" of contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streamreader (talk • contribs) 12:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Streamreader, I'm a bit baffled by various comments above, particularly those looking to deploy notability standards for academics' biographies. This article is about a website and the most relevant notability criteria are those at WP:NWEB. It is not about the individual contributors, nor can it really inherit notability from its contributors, other than if their notability was gained from their association with the magazine. AllyD (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, over twenty (20) notable contributors, and a good deal of source coverage, the page certainly needs cleanup, but there is something salvageable here. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since when is notability heritable? Notable contributors only contribute to the notability of this website if their contributions get noted. The same goes for the list of editors, whether those persons are notable or not is irrelevant. If they are, that might indicate that there is a chance for their site becoming notable in the future. At this point, there are no independent sources convincingly showing notability. The huge amount of references are all about the purportedly notable contributors, not the magazine. --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-admin closure. Alex^{discussion ★} 14:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historically Roman Catholic nations

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

Seems silly to have a page dedicated to listing Historically Roman Catholic nations when there is only one. If someone has a decent idea for a merge I would support it, although I imagine that'd be a bit pointless. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a combination of a dictionary definition that isn't properly defined and some lovely original research (which is factually incorrect anyway). There are a good number of South American countries that would tick all three boxes - "roots in Catholicism, were founded by Catholics, or have a large Catholic population" - but the subject itself is just nonsense. Stalwart111 02:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and I've just opened this associated AFD nomination. Stalwart111 04:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As pointed out, a very muddled concept and I cannot see it going anywhere. Since the topic necessarily imports an historical perspective, it runs into the difficulty that many current states acquired a concept of nationhood or political identity at a time when most of the population were Catholic. One could make a case for saying that Spain and Portugal owe existence to an aggressively Catholic claim to supremacy, but that is a different history from many other nations which are encompassed within the very broad definition and I fail to see a unifying identity there. --AJHingston (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source cited did not even use the expression, much less define it. Even if it could be shown that this particular expression is used the article would still be a dictionary definition only. Unless you want to have an article about Catholic nations as a group, which seems a little ponderous. And of course Vatican City is not a nation, except perhaps in a legal, diplomatic sense. BayShrimp (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails on every level - lack of reliable sources, giving a dictionary definition (again, unsourced), doing OR, etc., etc. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Skills

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I was unable to find any substantial coverage. Google only turned up sales sites like Amazon.com. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on Google including site:.edu -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venus (Low song)

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

The last time it was nominated, it was done by a block evader. The song fails WP:NSONGS (No charts, no awards, no covers by another artist(s)) OR WP:GNG. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to indicate why this subject is notable. Bearing in mind that notability is not inherited from a parent article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not even convinced that the band itself is truly notable, never mind this song (on which I was able to find no discussion by independent, reliable, third party sources to speak of). KDS4444^Talk 22:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian eugenics}}
+:{{la|Biolibertarianism}}
+:{{la|Neo-eugenics}}
+:{{la|New eugenics}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Doctor}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harewood Table}}