Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 March	27 March >

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 delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Beer Olympics

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

Non notable album with no references even Wgolf (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete Nothing notable about the album. If anything is, it should be added to the rather short article of the band that made it. AlbinoFerret 16:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. Merge at best. --Inother (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable, per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edwina Lloyd

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

Candidate to office without any other claim to notability Grahame (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This candidate for office had a feature article on the front page of a major newspaper and several television news stories about her being a candidate who had a drug charge in her past. This kind of state-wide coverage for a candidate is rare, which is why I felt she was notable when I created the page. AlexinaDuel (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to wait until tomorrow since then the election will be over; obviously this !vote is contingent on her losing, which she most likely will. To AlexinaDuel: that is what WP:ONEEVENT is for. Frickeg (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No argument from me on the outcome of the election, nor on the one event categorisation. I considered a more appropriate title rather than the name, but got stuck. "Edwina Lloyd Labor Candidate With A Prior Cocaine Charge" didn't seem right. These are editing questions from my perspective and not deletion ones. AlexinaDuel (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is possibly a place for a small amount of coverage (less than a paragraph) on her somewhere. In the past we have put it in the results pages where all the results are collected. Frickeg (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with additional places. I do maintain my original view. Though currently consensus is against me, and that will rule the day, as it should. AlexinaDuel (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She's not even the first NSW candidate in recent history to attract media over past drug usage, with the much more notable City of Sydney councillor and Lord Mayoral candidate Irene Doutney receiving similar attention a couple of years ago, and she has no claim to notability besides this. It's a BLP issue to have an article entirely about the fact a losing candidate had a history of involvement with drugs. I would not be opposed to including mention of it in an electorate-level writeup at the soon-to-be-created Results of the New South Wales state election, 2015 - as Frickeg says, this is something we have done before elsewhere and has worked. (This is with the caveat that, if it is added there, information about the rest of the race needs to go in as well or it'll be another BLP issue.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it turns out, she hasn't been elected, and WP:ONEEVENT stuff from muckraking tabloids is not anything good to base a BLP on. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete non winning and non notable candidate. AlbinoFerret 16:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are independent of her and are reliable. WP:BASIC is met. I dont see any muckraking tabloids. It's possible the editors removed the unreliable sources. It looks good now. Paperpencils (talk)Paperpencils

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Buduma

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

User:Nkbuduma, who appears to be the person about whom this BLP is written, has requested this page be deleted. I think the notability of this person is questionable, and we should honour their wish. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability of the subject is questionable (as discussed on the talk page), and the article seems to have been written and edited either as an attempt at self-aggrandizement or as a practical joke. See for example this edit by the primary author of the article Termanator94. This sequence of edits indicate the "Intellectual Property Theft" section is likewise suspect (in addition to blowing the linked article out of proportion). GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 21:00, 30 March 2015 (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. This is an obvious hoax. Nick-D (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pax Romana

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

This is a hoax. A 2010 edit by an IP, immediately self-reverted, said so. That is not definitive, of course, but investigation finds no confirmation. I do not have access to the book which is the first reference, but the second reference is accessible via JStor, and neither it nor the third reference say anything relevant. Authoritative sources on the holocaust in Romania also fail to provide any confirmation. The report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania is available online here (warning: 313-page pdf) and neither Operation Pax Romana nor Johannes Jodl is mentioned in its index. Further, the website of the "Elie Wiesel National Institute for the Study of Holocaust in Romania" contains a timeline "Etape ale holocaustului" ("Stages of the Holocaust"), which also does not mention Pax Romana or Jodl. False references plus no mention in authoritative sources = hoax. Thanks to Calamondin12 for tagging it. JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete John Connelly source also makes no mention of an operation Pax Romana. Almost definately a hoax. Bosstopher (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. I have access to the Jstor article, which says nothing about Pax Romana or Johannes Jodl or Jose Farias. "Pax Romana" refers to Rome, not Romania. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Mikhailova

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

Not notable composer, all references are primary sources and the article gives an impression of being promotional and reads like a resume. Karst (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. What a screaming mess. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. AlbinoFerret 16:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom withdrawn [1] / Per Sk1 (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlMaghrib Institute

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:PRG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al Rajhi

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

Sounds very successful, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF. Self-promotional page. BakerStMD T|C 18:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shambala (album)

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

Article contains no references and makes no assertion of album's notability. The only reason it cannot be nominated for speedy deletion is that the band itself, "Aquaria", has an article... But that, too, stands on very weak grounds, and I have also nominated that article for deletion as failing to meet notability guidelines. Regardless of whether or not the Aquaria article stands, this album cannot inherit notability from that one, and needs some evidence of its own independent notability as demonstrated in multiple reliable independent third-party sources. Otherwise this is just WP:PROMO.KDS4444 ^Talk 20:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references or any notability that I could find. AlbinoFerret 16:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, or anything else that would satisfy the WP:NALBUMS inclusion criteria. Worldbruce (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Campbell (musician)

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

I couldn't quite establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. I can't see the Times article, but generally I was surprised by thr low number of Google hits. Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any shortage of Google hits, although there are plenty of other Grant Campbells that need to be filtered out. There appear to be two Sunday Times article (both paywalled - [2], [3]), Glasgow Herald, The List, two reviews from The Scotsman: [4], [5], and two reviews from The Skinny: [6], [7]. I would say there's enough there to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn my error, Boleyn (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaria (band)

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

Article's references include only one dead link (Rockdetector) and a two-sentence press release (?) with no named author (Blabbermouth.net), neither of which is in the form of an inline citation (so there is no way to know what information these "references" are supposed to be supporting). Without these, there is no evidence of the subject's real-world notability: none of the band members appears to be notable, and neither of their albums was released under a major record label. Neither has the band won any awards anywhere. Having a link to the band's official website and its MySpace page makes me suspect that this is mostly WP:PROMO. Previous deletion discussions have focused on the fact that the band is covered in foreign language wikis— these wikis have different standards of notability than the English Wikipedia does, and should not be used as reliable evidence of the band's notability for this Wikipedia. A dead link and a press release do not constitute evidence of notability. KDS4444^Talk 20:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, non notable. AlbinoFerret 16:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mindo Fajardo

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

Not notable. Main source is a blog. Says has 5 international caps from the 50's but only lists against 3 teams, one against Peru where there is no record that Philippines had match versus Peru ever. I believe if any past player played in full international matches, there should be relevant source, not a modern source which mentions this in passing only. AndaleCaballo (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, no evidence he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as unverified. If the content of the article is accurate, it would of course meet WP:NSPORT, but in the absence of reliable sources we cannot assume that it is. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luxaeterna

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

Article with no assertion or evidence of notability of subject. KDS4444^Talk 20:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a reference from a 3rd party reviewing the album. but the band article is so small they can have their discography in the band article easily enough. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AlbinoFerret 17:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 17:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yolanda Saldívar

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

Granted this person received a large amount of media attention for who she murdered, but the subject is known for the one thing WP:1E. Therefore, the article should either be deleted or merged into Murder of Selena.
I am withdrawing my nomination. Consensus seems clear and for substantive reasons. Thank to everyone for their input. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that I would say this but I disagree. Saldivar is not only known for killing Selena (yes, she is mostly known for), but she had a hefty record before getting into contact with Selena (Patoski, 1996) and the publicity she had after the shooting has spurred other events, such as being proposed to another notorious convicted murderer (Arraras, 1997). The article can be expanded by the numerous books and films that have revolved around her, but I wouldn't want to be that person. Best, jona ^(talk) 20:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough, but I'm not seeing any of that in the article. From an average Reader standpoint, she's known for killing Selena and that's it. Any fame that resulted after the murder would not have happened had she not murdered Selena, its still effectively WP:1E. Lee Harvey Oswald did not become more Notable because he was killed by Jack Ruby, its just something that happened stemming from his primary act, the Kennedy Assassination. And unless somebody is going to make the argument that Selena's murder is on par with a political assassination, Saldivar doesn't seem Notable. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Hispanics the death of Selena is more important than the assassination of JFK (which is on the murder article and sourced), but I'm not going to expand the Saldivar article because there's a lot to do and I would rather focus on improving music articles. But for the sake of Wikipedia, she has been in the lime light other than the killing. Best, jona ^(talk) 21:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article is well-sourced and subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. AfD is not cleanup. - Dravecky (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "More important than JFK's assassination" was perhaps an exaggeration prompted by sentiment at the time, but I think we can legitimately compare this to the murder of John Lennon (also mentioned as a comparison of the time) for which we also have articles about both the murder and the murderer. While I suppose we could merge all of this content into Murder of Selena, on balance it is probably helpful to have a separate article for the detailed information about Saldívar, and there is certainly enough coverage about her to pass GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Well, everything's been basically said by Dravecky and Arxiloxos and I don't want to offend the nominator but...I mean really? --Antonio La Bestia Locaaaa Martin (dilo) 07:33, March 27, 2015 (UTC)

AntonioMartin, Really, what? This article came up on the Special:PendingChanges and when I saw what it was and the articles associated with it I wondered if it needed to exist separately. If this AfD concludes as Keep, I have no issue with that. I can give several examples of highly publicized murders where the perpetrator does not have a separate article, but is merged in with the article for the incident. I guess the standard is if you kill someone famous, you get your own article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a notorious murder, and it appears in books, a film, documentaries, news stories, etc. She's notable, too, for being a rare female killing a female for other than cheating with her male. Far from run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * why waste everybodys time with nominations like this one?. falls under WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The murder of Selena by Yolanda Saldívar was covered by the news media in North, Central and South America. Plus in the Latin countries in the Caribbean. Yolanda Saldívar's crime can be compared to Mark David Chapman's murder of John Lennon. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per above reasons. Cyclonius (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2015 (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. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 17:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akelyla Furbert

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

Contested speedy deletion (A7). Nakon 19:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played for her country at international level per this (already in the article) - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Gets mentions in Bermudian media - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL with international appearances. Nfitz (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL with another source. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article clearly meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL has played at International level.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2015 (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 Ogre You Asshole. The article's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ukarete iru hito

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

Contested prod-unotable album Wgolf (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Ogre You Asshole. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ogre You Asshole article. No indication of notability. --DAJF (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fadl AlSayed

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL as Lebanese league is not a Fully professional league. The included reference after the article was proded does not mention the player. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL - he is not mentioned in the sole source currently present in the article, I cannot find anyhting else about him, and some information (like him playing for the Lebanese national team) is simply false - a potential hoax? Giant Snowman 20:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if the article isn't a hoax, he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing I can find on him is the wikipedia article, non notable. AlbinoFerret 17:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Leopard Princess

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, a google search brings up nothing. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2015 (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 Ogre You Asshole. The article's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinhole (song)

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

Contested deletion-unotable song Wgolf (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Ogre You Asshole. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge as above User_talk:Elephantbronze 04:10, 30 March 2015 (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 speedily deleted by User:Ponyo per CSD G5 (creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great Falls (novel)

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

Non notable book Wgolf (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2015 (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 speedily deleted by User:Ponyo per CSD G5 (mass deletion of pages added by Black jack2015). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neeli filmography

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

Yet another uneeded filmography! Wgolf (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2015 (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. Nakon 01:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdi Abdul-Zahra

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL also WP:NOTMEMORIAL JMHamo (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He did not play in a fully pro league or receive significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2015 (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 Withdrawn by nominator; no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Gongshow talk 00:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mampi

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

Does not have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Best case redirect to Big Brother Africa 7 since she has some coverage as a contestant there although the information on that page shows she was kicked out on week 3 of a 13 week show. Does not meet general notability guidelines Jbh (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - No need to prolong this. Jbh (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Much of the article text was a COPYVIO and has been removed. See article history for text and websites (none of which are WP:RS) Jbh (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously famous in her own continent, apparently notable by our standards - I've added a couple of sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is an icon in and some parts of southern Africa. Chabota Kanguya 07:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icem4k (talk • contribs)

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

small class="delsort-notice"

Strongly Keep –She Meets WP:BASIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:3010:3FF1:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, per it being a seperate franchise in the MLS. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota United FC (MLS)

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

This is based on the fault premise that this team is in the same situation as previous teams, primarily Seattle, Vancouver and Portland and Orlando. However those teams changed name and other aspects when when they came to MLS. That is not the case with Minnesota. Seattle and Vancouver are prime examples of this while Montreal had no name change and was forced based on previous examples. MLS's franchise model does not mean that the previous companies/clubs cease to exist, only that they entered a different legal agreement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Orlando City SC (2010–14) and Orlando City maintained the same ownership and name across the two leagues. Not quite sure what you mean by "Montreal had no name change and was forced based on previous examples", but it is a similar situation with two articles, Montreal Impact and Montreal Impact (1992–2011). Plus, the management has indicated that they'd like to keep most thing intact, there was no guarantee. While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason to keep an article, it seems obvious that we need a broader discussion about how to deal with teams promoted to MLS. Mosmof (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Should apply to Orlando City as well then. The exception of Seattle, Vancouver and Portland should not become the rule. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - separate franchises merit separate articles. Giant Snowman 18:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GiantSnowman. – Michael (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Mosmof and GiantSnowman. — Dale Arnett (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Separate franchises. Team are not promoted to MLS. New expansion franchises are granted to ownership groups. KitHutch (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - for that matter I don't know why we have two separate articles for Montreal Impact or Seattle Sounders given they both had same (or partially same) owners, players, staff, and names as the previous iteration that played the year earlier. Nfitz (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have separate articles for those pages is because they're separate franchises. – Michael (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many counter-examples though. How about Newport County A.F.C, which was reformed from scratch, played in a different city for a while, had different ownership, managament, and name. Isn't it even MORE than two separate franchises? Montreal and Seattle had same logo, fans, owners, management, staff, offices, stadium, etc., etc., etc. Just a different league, and different legal structure. Nfitz (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They did not have the same logo. As a matter of fact, they didn't even have a name when they were formed at first. We have got to stop playing it like these teams were promoted to MLS, because that's obviously no where close to true. You can have the same name, owners, fans, etc. But the fact that Minnesota formed an MLS team that is of course to begin play in 2018 while the NASL franchise is still in business for another three years, that's enough to tell you why we need separate pages because they're not the same. Merging the article will cause massive confusion. – Michael (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your case is that they don't have the same logos? Compare the USL logo and MLS logo. Yes, the other two teams (thankfully) changed logos - I'd mercifully forgotten how horrid those old USL logos were! Vancouver Whitecaps website claims they were founded in 1974. Portland's website mentions their first season in 1975. And Seattle's website notes the team was born in 1974. And if you look at Montreal's website it says they started in 1993. These are clearly the same teams, and suggesting otherwise in the articles may violate WP:OR. Perhaps Minnesota is a different case ... I'd have to dig more. But it's pretty clear that the Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, and Montreal articles should be merged.

The reason we have different articles is at one point someone decided that Seattle's team needed one. When Vancouver and Portland entered the league the case was made that it was a precedent based on Seattle and that's how's it's gone. Franchises is BS smoke screen. The clubs/companies still exist as separate legal entities and when the league collapses, we're faced with mess to clean-up since many of the clubs will continue to exist and field teams, but since they are no longer franchises, we have to relocate the old articles and create new ones, or resurrect the pre-MLS articles.

I continue to edit based on the current consensus, but am one of the only editors who reverts the many changes indicating the Seattle, Vancouver, Portland, Montreal and other clubs started when the teams were founded. I sure wish those voicing their opinion that we have separate articles because of some made-up franchise idea would carry the weight when it comes to maintaining that lie. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made-up franchise idea? I'm sorry but that last part made absolutely zero sense. They formed a team that won't begin play until 2018 while their current team is still playing in the NASL for another couple years. That's two different teams. So saying that we're making stuff up here is absurd. – Michael (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: My case is the MLS teams didn't have a name when they were formed and the USL teams were still playing. Besides we already have pages containing the history of teams like the Timbers, Sounders, etc. But again my point is the USL teams were still playing while the MLS clubs were formed kicked off two years later. That's not the same. You're also referencing the NASL teams who folded in the early 80's. – Michael (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The gap from the NASL period is interesting, though Portland and Montreal have continuous histories. There was never USL and MLS teams playing at the same time. Yes, the ownership of the USL team had announced than an MLS team would be formed, but in that period, it was literally the same person providing information about the current USL operations and future MLS operations; that's far more than you see in articles for many European teams with a single article that were completely reformed by different people after folding. Whatever case was made for having separate articles for Portland, Montreal, Orlando, Seattle, and Vancouver expired years ago - just like Rangers newco was eliminated when it was clear the new team was the old team. Nfitz (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the arguments for keep and delete, but Rangers newco isn't a good analogy here. They're the same club because the new Rangers filled a Rangers-shaped hole in the Scottish football pyramid. In North America, the major league and the second tier are entirely different structures with different business models. Mosmof (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - what about Newport County A.F.C. then. Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction I'd make with Newport is the difference between the North American franchise model and the British club model. In the US setup, a franchise can only exist as part of a league, whereas a club exists independently of a league. Mosmof (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And so when this club was in USSF-D2 and later the NASL it was a franchise? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough to warrant article. Plenty of coverage in google news search. AlbinoFerret 17:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Different owners different league likely different players different stadium. It is a separate franchise. It spawned from the current version and is using that logo.Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Same owners. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You sure about that? I know one owner is the same but it is a group. Even it it were the same entity (which I'm not convinced of) spinning off a separate article is a good break for the sake of length, prevents recentism (which will happen since the MLS side will get more attention than the last couple years of ball), and protects the uniformity of the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I stand corrected. Same owner, but with additional investors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2015 (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) Esquivalience ^t 00:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juanita Broaddrick

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

I feel like this is a rather straightforward case of WP:BLP1E, as she seems to be only notable for allegedly being raped by Bill Clinton. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject, or specifically her allegations, have received significant coverage in a wide variety of reliable sources to the present day. On par with Kathleen Willey, the content is a legitimate fork of Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton. To me, one question is whether we should name the article after her or after the event (i.e. the allegations she made). I'm OK with keeping it as named given that, per BLP1E, the event (i.e.allegations) was significant and she was central to that event. - Location (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it needs a lot more editing, but it's not so bad as to require WP:TNT. FWIW, I voted twice for Bill, before I was aware of the allegations, and am a supporter of Hillary. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not a clean-up of a service for articles that needs attention. WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her name is still popping up in mainstream political RS over twenty years after the fact, even within the last month: [13],[14],[http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/sexing-texting-with-the-clintons/], etc. Has clearly survived the "news cycle". Pax 11:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this should be renamed after the notable event, not taking the form of a biography of the otherwise non-notable person who made the charge. Carrite (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the upcoming Presidential election and the possibility Hillary may be the democratic nominee her husband's lack of character should continue to be a matter of public importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeRoyDallas (talk • contribs) 00:00, 2 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1873 Harvard Crimson football team

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

Harvard played no football in 1873, the 1873 dates were confused for 1874. Its own sources betray the article. See 1874 Harvard vs. McGill football game. Cake (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding notice @MisterCake: Cake, you need to add your signature to your AfD nomination above, and then notify the article creator, User:Cbl62, per the AfD instructions. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pardon. Cake (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as renamed. Although football games were often played in the spring in the early years of the game, college football is IMO properly treated by academic, rather than calendar, year. The teams are assembled in this manner, i.e., by academic year, and the players who participated in game during the 1873-74 academic year are different from those who participated during the 1874-75 academic year. Accordingly, and since all games were played in the spring during the 1873-74 academic year, I have renamed the article as "1873-74 Harvard Crimson football team." I believe this is the correct solution rather than deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the sources treat the 1873-74 team as being distinct from the 1874-75 team. See College Football Data Warehouse and Harvard Athletics web site. Cbl62 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have likewise renamed the 1874–75, 1875–76 and 1876–77 Harvard Crimson football team, each of which has games played in both the fall and spring of the applicable academic year. Cbl62 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice one source using 1873-1874. The page as listed before implied the games occurred in the year of 1873, which was my main concern, and this seems a fine solution. Anything to say when this practice stops? Cake (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The practice was common in the 1870s, but occasional spring games continued into the 1880s. See, e.g., 1887 Michigan Wolverines football team. Cbl62 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Where's the button to keep the article you just nominated for deletion and not look silly? Cake (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cake, you don't look silly at all. These seasons predated the modern practice of fall-only college football seasons. These article titles needed to be clarified. You did not do anything wrong. But you could have discussed it with Cbl62 first. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, Cake. The article had some patent errors that have now been fixed as a result of the AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, you could simply note that the nomination is withdrawn. Cbl62 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn on the condition that it's kept as renamed. Someone more in tune with Eastern football should use his efforts to look at teams such as these – the Harvard games with McGill and Tufts are arguably as significant as the original Princeton-Rutgers match. Cake (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2015 (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 Bardo National Museum attack. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akil (dog)

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

This is clear WP:ONE EVENT. There is not even an article about the (human) police officer who was killed.

However, I feel that would also be more appropriate as a redirect than an article. Superm401 - Talk 07:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Shame about the dog but it's not as if it was Lassie. This was not a notable dog. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – does not meet general notability; it is just one event, although sad. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with lacking notability to justify an encyclapedic entry, the article reads like a news story possible for Wikinews but not Wikipedia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect –Hafspajen (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Merge~~ to Bardo National Museum attack. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - True shame about the dog's death, but if it could get away with having an article of its own, then why not articles for all the other victims? It's just another casualty in the attack, sadly. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, per it winning multiple awards as listed in the below discussion. I would, at this time, also remind Mehran that we are a worldwide encyclopedia; which means that a major literary award is not made invalid for use as a source of notability, just because it is not known by those in the English speaking parts of the world. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That Which That Orphan Saw

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

There is no independent and reliable source in the articles, no sign of notability. More like an advertisement for the book than an encyclopediac article. ●Mehran ^Debate● 07:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The article is not notable and lacks reliable sources. Should be deleted without hesitation. Mbcap (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator has opened 4 AfDs. They are all article created by User:Mhhossein. The nom has voiced intention to open more AfDs for articles created by Mhhossein - they will be added to this list if so.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Woman's War: Da (Mother)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A City Under Siege: Tales of the Iran-Iraq War
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Which That Orphan Saw
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi

--GreenC 04:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 11:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is new and there is active editing on the page. Notability does not have to be established in the first few days. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 12:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Related ANI discussion that involves this AfD. -- GreenC 15:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:BKCRIT #1. According to the publisher (?) "Mohammad Reza Sarshar is the author of more than 130 books for children, as well as literary and scholarly works and translations. He has received 31 national and state awards." and That Which That Orphan Saw "..has received numerous awards that have distinguished it." It's very difficult to search Persian-language sources so even the smallest evidence of notability is sometimes enough. However evidence of prizes can be found in this source which says "also won several prizes won during the short time that can be chosen, including.." (lists a couple). The book has been discussed or reviewed in Farsi sources such as at the Tehran Quaran Academy (Source: Iran News Network), a book review (Source: farsnews.com), book review (Source: Iran Book News Agency), book review (Source: Office of Public Library of Qom). Although these are Farsi sources, notability is not restricted to English-language sources and should be given equal weight to English sources. Per WP:BKCRIT #1 a book is notable if it receives multiple reviews, but even failing that it clearly has received considerable attention in Iran since it's seen as controversial (portraying Muhammad fictionally) and would pass WP:GNG. -- GreenC 17:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher is not a dependent source, I searched before and found no award for this book, that was just a lie and ads for the book. This source is the writer's website and is not dependent either. This source has been written by the writer and would not be dependent. Tasnim News is not a reliable source and also the content is just a promotion for the book in Amazon. ●Mehran ^Debate● 18:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tasnim News is used on en.Wikipedia and fa.Wikipedia. In these 4 AfDs you discount every source as 'unreliable' but that's not really the case. Sarshar.org is the author's website but it's a copy of an article from the Iran News Network, which is typical for authors to archive articles about themselves. You say the awards are a "lie", but I've linked to an article that supports it won awards. You say Far News is "written by the author" but that's not how it reads at all, the translation says "He said.." and says at the top "book review". -- GreenC 19:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many unreliable sources (even Facebook) have been used in Wikipedia, that could not be a reason. I think it is so clear that the writer's quotes is not an independent source and includes CoI. The FarsNews page is a report told by the own writer, you can ask a native Persian user to confirm that. It seems there are some users participating here and in the other AfDs to !vote. Repeated illogical !votes in the four AfDs sound like a tag teaming to me. There is no sheriff in this city and I would not waste my time anymore so. This is not a fair AfD and you can do whatever you want, I am done here. Good luck. ●Mehran ^Debate● 04:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No more an advertisement than any book article; it discusses the plot, and the reception. That's what such articles are supposed to do. The awards prove the notability, as usual. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official award for this book. ●Mehran ^Debate● 04:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG's logic above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ism schism: DGG's logic is the awards for the book, while there is no official award. Could you please explain more? ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesnt meet WP:NBOOK, three of the references cited in the article are not independent of the book, they are a publisher site, the persian wikipedia page which would more be more appropriate in a 'see also' entry, and the authors site. The Khamenei ref [15] is okay giving the reader an insight into why the author wrote the book. a google search brings up nothing, worldcat and trove shows no libraries as holding it (maybe too early?). Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page creator- Awards: established the "Selected work" in the Quranic stories festival. In this festival, books published in 10 years were compared and "That Which That Orphan Saw" won the prize. This book also won "Book of the year award", an important official award. You can read a review Published by ketabestan, a specialized book related website where it is mentioned that almost 13000 copies of the book are sold. Mhhossein (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BKCRIT, the book needs to win a major award in order to be notable. Quranic stories festival is not even an award. This link you gave is an unknown award, and the page is probably not about the mentioned book since it had been a translated book from a Lebanese version and Batool Meshkinfam (بتول مشکین‌فام) has won this [unknown] awards in translation category, while Sarshar is the writer. Ketabestan is a mirror site, it had copied its contents from the publisher's and some other websites, besides the copyright violation, it has just quoted the writer's own criticism. ●Mehran ^Debate● 10:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Mehran could read farsi very well. Here it is mentioned "That Which That Orphan Saw" was selected among the books published within 10 years (from 1995 up to 2005) in Iran and it established the title of "The selected work". Is it an establishment for a book or not? By the way, "Book of the year" is not unknown award (you seem unfamiliar with literary subjects). Moreover, The link says: "کتاب «جاده جنگ» اثر منصور انوری در بخش رمان و کتاب «آنک آن یتیم نظر کرده» اثر بتول مشکین‌فام در بخش ترجمه دو اثر برگزیده انتشارات سوره مهر در جایزه کتاب سال بودند," which demonstrates that "بتول مشکین فام" has translated the book into English and it won the prize. The second half of the materials of that link is a review by the site and I would like to know how a writer may criticize his own book? by the way you can search the Persian title to understand how notable the book is in Iran although the award itself adds weight. Mhhossein (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I told before, even we assume the award is not unknown, the book itself has not won a major award, the translated version has won a minor award which is not related to the book by Sarshar. I did not understand your question, the source has made it clear that the content has been written by the write: "محمدرضا سرشار (نویسنده كتاب)- فكر نوشتن از سرزمین نور از سال 1359 در ذهن من افتاد..." and you did not pay attention to rest of word, the website is a mirror of the publication's and has not published a thing itself. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book of the year is certainly known and major! Bty, How can you differentiate between the different versions of the book, so should we make a page for every versions of a book? Moreover, from "كتابي را كه امروز قرار است راجع به آن صحبت كنيم، «‌آنك آن يتيم نظر كرده" up to the end is the review by ketabetsan. As you see some parts are challenged and the week points are mentioned and criticized. for example it says:"نكتة ديگري كه به نظر من نقطة قوت نيست اين است كه پرداختن به فرازهاي زندگي پيامبر در كتاب، به شكل همسان انجام نشده است." please consider that the book also meets general notability guideline, too. Mhhossein (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No matter it has an article in fawiki or not, currently this award is unknown and non-existent here in English Wikipedia. Whenever it wants to be known and major, there have to be a link to the official website of the award, not a news report of a session with the translator of the book, which makes this source dependent again. I showed the proofs that Ketabestan review is nothing but a copyright violation and am not willing to repeat it again. And the article would not satisfy WP:GNG since the reviews and the sources are dependent or mirror of the publication's website. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:01, 2 April 2015 (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. Michig (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A City Under Siege: Tales of the Iran-Iraq War

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

Poor notability and lack of reliable sources. There article is more like an advertisement for the book than an encyclopediac article. There is nothing which can make the book notable ●Mehran ^Debate● 07:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple editors have worked on this article over time and it does have basic sources. And since it does not read like a typical "blurb", I see no reason to delete it at this time. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 12:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references are dependent or promotional and they are not reliable. The article is just introducing the book and there is no sign of notability in it. ●Mehran ^Debate● 14:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and ~~WP:AUTHOR #3~~ WP:BKCRIT #1 multiple reviews. -- GreenC 14:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain more why is it notable? FYI we are talking about a book not an author and there is nothing related to the criterion you showed. ●Mehran ^Debate● 14:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I got author and book confused. I believe it is notable due to passing WP:GNG & WP:BKCRIT #1 multiple reviews. -- GreenC 14:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which review? The guideline is "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". May I ask you to show me such sources? ●Mehran ^Debate● 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are in the article:

M.A.Orthofer (21 April 2011). "A City Under Siege". complete review. Retrieved June 3, 2014.
Hamid Eshani. "A City under Siege". Review of Middle East Studies (Winter 2011, Vol. 45 Issue 2). Retrieved March 27, 2015.

Need more? I'm pretty good at searching. (Although the BKCRIT only requires two.) There's a third one there, but since it's in Farsi I can't comment on the quality, it looks independent (ketabnews.com) and discusses the book based on Google Translate. -- GreenC 16:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the guidelines (not "rules") for notability are in place to establish the basis for discussion and consensus. Middle Eastern literature in English is an underrepresented area and works from the Middle East (certain Ex-pat authors excepted) do not receive the same attention in reviews as Western authors, so notability is difficult to assess. That said, I still see no reason to delete, and the tone of this conversation feels a little "tense"--which is another reason I would argue to let it stay for now. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 16:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "tense" is, but tone of a conversation never is a reason for keeping an article. Wikipedia has guidelines and comments here have to be referred to these guideline. The user claimed that there are reviews for this book to make it notable, and I ask again, where are these reviews? ●Mehran ^Debate● 20:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And I repeat, the guidelines (again they are not "rules" or "laws") are derived from consensus and common practice and following them exactly, or not, is also by consensus--in this case, voting and discussion, which is what we are doing now. HullIntegrity^{\ talk← /} 00:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With your argument we should keep all the non-notable articles in AfDs since notability guidelines is not a matter of discussion. Voting is not a acceptable process in the AfDs and you are not obliged to answer on behalf of the other users, so I ask for the third time from who claimed there are reviews for the book, could you please show me such reviews? ●Mehran ^Debate● 03:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of User:HullIntegrity's comments above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is not notable and lacks reliable sources. Should be deleted without hesitation. Mbcap (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author's earlier book, Chess with the Doomsday Machine, has been a common reading on several notable US campuses and is being used in other college courses. So, that book seems notable beyond discussion as does, therefore, the author. As to this book -- and I will further clarify -- it is extremely difficult, in general and in the current political climate, for translations of books from the Middle East to be reviewed at all, by anyone who writes in English. That unfortunate circumstance creates a special case where the systemic bias (external to Wikipedia) should be acknowledged, in my humble opinion, by the editors on Wikipedia. Almost no translated books from the Middle East that are politically contentious will be reviewed by any New York Times reviewer who wants to keep a job. "Notable by absence" is what underrepresented areas are all about (and ergo edit-a-thons). HullIntegrity^\ talk / 01:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relationship between Chess with the Doomsday Machine and A City Under Siege: Tales of the Iran-Iraq War notability. If there is no review, there would be no notability then. Wikipedia has its own policies and does not obey the users' opinions. ●Mehran ^Debate● 03:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually . . . your statement is, I believe, incorrect. Wikipedia has no editing "policies" that apply here. I assist with new user training almost every week, and "collective decisions" over "guidelines" is exactly what is included in the training. So saying "we have to follow the policies" just makes no sense in this case. I cannot speak for Wikipedia in other languages as I only work with Spanish very lightly, but their guidelines seem very similar. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 12:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:-Page creator- The subject is notable for sure. All of the sources are reliable and the book is reviewed by complete review. This source exists in the article and I wonder how the nominator has not found it out. By the way, the book won the Writing Forge Literary Award in UK a while ago. [16]. Mhhossein (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator has opened 4 AfDs. They are all article created by User:Mhhossein. The nom has voiced intention to open more AfDs for articles created by Mhhossein - they will be added to this list if so.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Woman's War: Da (Mother)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A City Under Siege: Tales of the Iran-Iraq War
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Which That Orphan Saw
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi

--GreenC 04:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom :)Ladsgroup^overleg 11:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related ANI discussion that involves this AfD. -- GreenC 15:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep discusses the book itself,and the reception, just like it should. There seems to be good sources for awards. (the book would seem aligned with the nationalist view of the war, but that is no reason not to have an article. WP is neutral on such matters.) DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, specifically '1.The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.' The relevant article refs are M.A.Orthofer of complete review [17] and Hamid Eshani of Middle East Studies Association of North America [18] The other refs may be okay for rounding out the article (iran review ref also states that the book was the basis for an award winning film) I have also found this [19] which is an academic paper using two of the books stories for study.Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G12) by Diannaa. –Davey2010^Talk 16:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prati Balaji pune

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

Aside from the blatantly promotional tone, fails the general notability guidelines like many other temples in India. Also not a significant geographical location. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not a temple, it's a replica built by a chicken magnate, a fake version of an important temple. A redirect to that page could be left. However, it may not come to that: I've nominated the page for speedy deletion as an unambiguous copyright violation (I started removing the copyvio, but gave up when I was left with "Prati Balaji Mandir is situated in hilly area" as the entire text). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2015 (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sprachman

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

There is no sign of notability per WP:GNG. He is an ordinary translator. ●Mehran ^Debate● 06:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As (full diclosure) a translator myself I think I'm going to have to stick up for Sprachman. Granted that this is a very niche genre. He notes himself in the interview (4) below that the market for translated fiction in the US is very small, and the market for translated Persian fiction is a small fraction of that. So the best-selling translation for 2009 (8) didn't sell very well. But being a (the?) leading translator from a language like Persian ought to count for something. I think that these sources should be enough to write a decent article.

Review on JSTOR [20]

English version of war novel “Da” completed - Tehran Times [21]

IBNA - Paul Sprachman visits IBNA [22]

Literature of war in Persian presents interesting challenges to reader | onviewpoint.com [23]

NJ Jewish News on-line | A Rutgers professor thinks Iran is open to diplomacy — and tourism [24]

A City under Siege - Habib Ahmadzadeh [25]

Americans read Iranian war novel, 5 October 2005 [26]

Britannica Book of the Year 2009 [27]

– Margin1522 (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources such as this article in The Philadelphia Inquirer, this one in the New Jersey Jewish News (among and in addition to the several listed by Margin1522) are the kinds of reliable and verifiable sources that establish notability. Yes, the article needs work -- it seems to have been translated by someone using a dictionary -- but notability is established. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if this is a case of Nominative determinism given the subject's name means "Language man". (see wikt:Sprache) Le petit fromage (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the chuckle, User:Le petit fromage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, as laid out by User:Alansohn and User:Margin152. (Plus, we can be sure that it is not self-promotion; page was clearly written by a non-native English speaker.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2015 (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Olszyński Tenement in Bydgoszcz

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

The notability of this building is not clearly stated. There are no supporting references that provide notability either. The only references are from Polish telephone books (proving only of its existence) and an ambiguous reference on a random carpenter. This seems entirely non-notable. Jcmcc450 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This is one of a whole group of articles created over the last week. See the categories Gdanska street in Bydgoszcz, Buildings and structures in Bydgoszcz, Tenements in Poland. Some of them look notable, but I don't know about this one. It is described on the talk page as typical 19th century architecture. It's not without references – according to Google Translate, the books cited are Gdansk Street Historical Guide and Chronicle Bydgoszcz by the Society of Friends of the City of Bydgoszcz. But a historical guide to the street doesn't seem like enough to meet notability. Nor does it seem important enough to merge to Gdanska Street in Bydgoszcz. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons stated above--there's simply not enough support for notability. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even listed as a heritage building by the Polish government, which lists more buildings than most countries in the world (Bydgoszcz has about 250 listed buildings). Just a fairly ordinary late 19th century urban building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A historic building from the 19th century with traceable background supported by references. I see nothing wrong with having it here. – The user needs to learn how to format properly. Poeticbent talk 17:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A historic building like many others in Bydgoszcz, well documented in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs)

Comment But what is the historical value? Where are the references to its value? This article does not establish either of those. What stops any random passerby from declaring a building "historical" and making a page about it? Jcmcc450 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No evidence it is recognize by a monument or mention in more than passing by reliable sources. Doesn't exist on pl wiki (pl:Ulica_Gdańska_w_Bydgoszczy).At best, merge to Gdańska street in Bydgoszcz which should be created. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is ridiculous. Category:Gdanska street in Bydgoszcz. An apparent attempt to write an article on every single building on the street. There are 57 articles here. The Polish government only lists 23 buildings on this street as heritage buildings, and not all of them are probably worthy of articles (as an author of several architectural guides to Polish cities I can testify to the fact that the Polish government lists many rather underwhelming buildings!). I'm sure the creator's intentions are worthy, but this is rather over the top. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It was not clear at first why this was written, but it at least alleges that this is a notable building. This is truly one of the most marginal cases I've seen at AfD in months; no !vote for me. Can it be saved? Bearian (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2015 (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) –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Geltman

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

This article has one source, Geltman's website. The article has been tagged with having this as a deficiency since Feb. 2007, for over 8 years. There is no indication that the subject comes anywhere close to meeting our notability guidelines for musicians. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found some newspaper sources rather quickly so there should be more. Winner of the Boston Music Awards and several times more nominated for it. Think one should work on the article and not delete it. Optimale ^Gu 15:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements made, thus meeting the WP:HEY threshold. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples: [28], [29] (pp. 142-143), [30], [31], [32] and [33]. See also: WP:BEFORE, section D. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaquille Murray-Lawrence

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

Non-notable athlete, fails WP:NCOLLATH. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot notable to have his own article. The Tyler Junior College doesn't even have references to their sports teams so I think we'd have to see their sports become notable , to have an article about their sports, and maybe mention the player, but having a dedicated article makes no sense for Wikipedia based on their notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Tyler Junior College article not having references to their sports team does not mean that their sports team is not notable. It may be that Wikipedia is far from complete and the article may be warranted just not yet created. It also has very little bearing on if this subject is notable. Which, by the way, I believe the subject fails WP:GNG and virtually all other notability guidelines I can find at this time (although there are a few mentions in selected articles). Subject may meet notability in the future, but I do not believe it does at this time. Therefore, I arrive at Delete but for different reasons. If any editor is enthusiastic on this subject and wishes to userfy, of course that would be accaeptable as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2015 (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. Michig (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy of Hinduism and its Involvement in Indian Government

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

Original research. None of the references actually discuss the topic. utcursch | talk 01:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 01:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks references, is an orphan, no categories, and any Encyclopedic content could easily fit in other articles. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought-- shivam (t) 14:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the two comments before me, I keep asking why this has an article. AlbinoFerret 19:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be deleted as soon as possible --Haccom ✉ Talk to me 07:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article, it's purely WP:OR.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Ponyo per WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 17:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohiuddin Nawab

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

Only sources are that written by the person himself. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-not notable Wgolf (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage by reliable third party sources, the sources all have close ties to the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:38, 26 March 2015 (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. The last comment by User:Arb is showing of a potential for this list to be expanded, with reliable sourcing. Therefore, while I was leaning towards closing this as a redirect, I now find that there is no clear consensus to be made here at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres in Jamaica

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

A list of one item is not a list The Banner talk 23:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is one of three related articles that the OP has nominated. The others are:

-Arb. (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed with the nominator that a list of one thing is not a list, it is a fork of the one item listed on the list. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Apparently an abandoned page, untouched by the creator or anyone else for more than two years. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Abandoned" is a classic red herring in deletion discussions; there are many fine Wikipedia articles that have been untouched for far longer. -Arb. (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the best solution, when we have these one-item lists that are part of a series, is to redirect to the one listed article. That way there won't be a gap in either the navigational template or the likely search term. I also have a hard time believing there is only one massacre in the island's whole history that is worth documenting, particularly given the history of colonization and slavery, but redirection would also preserve the formatting in case anyone can properly expand it in the future. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article originator here. It's a few years ago but looking at the history it appears it was created to secure Jamaica's place in the By country section of {{Massacres}} (as postdlf alludes) and thereby de-orphan Green Bay massacre. There have undoubtedly been other notable massacres in the island's five hundred year history so it has potential to be expanded. Cf. WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NORUSH & WP:POTENTIAL. -Arb. (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominating after more than two years is not exactly being in a rush but you know your essays well. Unfortunately, one items does not make a list. The Banner talk 02:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it was an isolated list I might be inclined to agree with you and advocate redirect. However, it seems to me that lists that are part of a series are a special case. Think of it from a reader's point of view. Suppose a reader is working through the {{Massacres}} navbox (go view it anyone who hasn't) looking at various entries; after two or three their expectation is that each will take them to a List of ... article. So what are the possibilities with a list of one:
    - Delete; they see a red link in the Navbox.
    - Redirect; they are taken to an article. And have to pause from the task in hand to wonder why. If they are experienced in Wikipedia they may eventually figure it out but they may not. In user Interface design jargon we've "confounded their expectations"; something to be avoided where possible.^[1]
    - Keep; they are taken to a list of one item. They can immediately see that Wikipedia only has one Massacre article for that country and continue with whatever it is they are doing without a diversion into meta-think or puzzlement.

-Arb. (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - a list with one item is a redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to List of events named massacres. I agree with Postdlf's comment:
I also have a hard time believing there is only one massacre in the island's whole history that is worth documenting, particularly given the history of colonization and slavery, but redirection would also preserve the formatting in case anyone can properly expand it in the future.
Per WP:NOTPAPER and Wikipedia:There is no deadline, I would prefer to keep the list as is. This would be more likely to encourage editors to add entries than redirection or deletion. But if the consensus is that this should not be an article right now, I would prefer the history is preserved through a redirect to List of events named massacres.
Cunard (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An idea - I've just created Draft:List of massacres by country and added the tables from the three nominated articles. This is a distinct topic from list of events named massacres as all that is required is sources call these massacres rather than being named as such. Now any list of one can be added here (along with the rest) as an appropriate redirect target. I don't have time to work on it right now, but will later if others like this idea. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres in Iceland as this AfD ends first. -Arb. (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rhododendrites:. The trouble with that approach is that there are approximately ninety (90) List of massacres in <country> articles so done properly your suggestion would produce an article with that many headings, all but three of which had under them only a link to a {{Main}}; that brings its own problems of maintainability, etc.

And all because a few editors are uncomfortable with the idea of a list with only one item. And yet such things turn up all the time in the real world, particularly when they are part of a series of lists; think text books, computer programs, etc. Interestingly, List states "A list is any enumeration of a set of items." I'm pretty sure that "any enumeration" can include one. -Arb. (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

End of copied text -Arb. (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Krug, Steve (2005-08-18). Don't Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability (Second ed.). New Riders. ISBN 978-0321344755.

Keep - notable list. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd hoped that this AfD would resolve the issue of "Lists with a single item that are part of a navbox series" being a special case. However, as no one seems prepared to engage with that here's a link to a massacre of fifty or so people in 2009 for which Wikipedia has as yet no mention that I can find: A Massacre in Jamaica, New Yorker. The shooting of seven unarmed citizens by the British Army during the Morant Bay rebellion was also arguably a massacre. There are doubtless more. -Arb. (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Diez

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

Just for new participants: I have replaced the (very) old version with a new version. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to referring to the article's talk page, please review recent discussion thread at DRN (WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Helmut_Diez). Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, the dewiki and wikidata spam will do for this century. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Updated to dunno for the relist, because "move this to wikibooks" wouldn't be honest. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to lack of notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Above "delete" vote is cast by nominator, against the norm. When you nominate a page for deletion, it's presumed that you'd vote in favor of the deletion you've requested. Don't stuff the ballot box. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where and when was that "norm" established? Surely there's a pertinent policy or guideline that you can point to that backs up your assertion about the norm. If not, you shouldn't be making such accusations about stuffing the ballot box. That's very uncivil. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply compare these versions: [34] --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This issue was just discussed at DRN and I was the moderator for the case. I have not examined all of the sources that User:Hans has submitted as evidence of notability but the ones I did examine made it seem like a more thorough examination of the sources and the article, by the community, [was] needed. PS Hans, if you like you can cast a !vote here at AfD in support of the article. Also if you feel you have legitimate sources, you might post them here in a condensed form or link to your sandbox so editors can examine them and make an informed judgement. But it's up to you. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Keithbob, I think you made a good job. It was my fault that I did not know your incredibly complicated regulations well enough. As a consequence, I did not see the traps. But I'm not in a hurry. I still know that Diez's works, e.g. his publications, his role in the field of labor and so on, make him a notable personality, and that he is an astonishing generalist. That's why I started the article. If some of the readers are interested they can visit my sandbox. Of course: keep. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. This is not necessarily a "keep" vote, but I would like to point out that Rhode Island Red has been blanking every good contribution made to this article simply because he can't read German. I don't know if this article should be kept or not, or if Helmut is in fact notable enough to merit one, but if Rhode Island Red has his way, we'll never get the chance to find out. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted nothing that was "good". I deleted content, as per WP:BLP, that was unsourced/poorly sourced and badly written to the point of incomprehensibility. You've made a horribly flawed assumption that not understanding German was the basis for the deletion. You can retract that unfounded statement immediately. This bio page just went through DRN and the DRN interlocuter agreed that the article had fundamental problems as I had outlined.[35] I'll also ask you to focus on content and not comment further on what you think I'm thinking or make potshots like "if Rhode Island Red had his way". That's needlessly inflammatory. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did no such thing. What you did was blanking the article. Here, from the very page you linked:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Notice the first word there: contentious material. Nothing in the material you deleted was contentious. It possibly falls short of WP:N, but that's the point of AfD discussions like this one. The only thing contentious in this entire discussion is you. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some sources available on the Internet show that Helmut Diez is called

- "Design Labor Bremerhaven diretto" in Modo 147-153 (1993), p.6. See [36]

- "DesignLabor's managing director" in Blueprint 1993, p.106. See [37]

- Director of "Einrichtungen zur Designförderung" in the European Design Guide: Agence pour la promotion de la création industrielle APCI (France), 1994. See [38]

- "Belegschaftsberater" in Karin Derichs-Kunstmann, Gewerkschaftliche Arbeitslosenarbeit: Erfahrungen, Ergebnisse, Konzepte (1988), p.202. See [39]

He is also known as contributor to Otto König, Adi Ostertag, Hartmut Schulz, "Unser Beispiel könnte ja Schule machen!": das "Hattinger Modell," Existenzkampf an der Ruhr (1985), 156-163, and other publications of this kind. All this suggests that he is internationally recognized as an entrepreneur, professional consultant, coach and designer. Furthermore, the subject has been considered notable enough for a substantial entry in the German Wikipedia, where Diez's notability has not been questioned by other users. However, the English text certainly needs reworking by native speakers. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we've got a case of sockpuppetry and use of a WP:SLEEPER here. It's time to run a check user on Wikiwiserick[40] and Hans-Jürgen Hübner.[41] Wikiwiserick (who had a history of tendentious editing on similar articles about obscure living German artists) had been silent since October 2013 and then suddenly reawakened the account to chime in on this deletion vote. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first time that we are of the same opinion! Please, try your luck. I would like to come to know this intelligent colleague, who knows a lot about art history - in harsh contrast to you and a bit less harsh to me - and who seems to have made similar experiences with your "strategy". Oh sorry, we are not exactly of the same opionion: Neither HA Schult nor Gotthard Graubner are "obscure" artists. That's what even I know. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such ridiculous accusations seem to be part of Rhode Island Red's attempts at intimidation which are directed against users who are not of his opinion. However, I am not intimidated, just amused. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: None of the sources above contain more than incidental mention of the bio subject (two of the sources merely mention that Diez was "DesignLabor's managing director") and fall far short of demonstrating notability as per WP's definition. They all lack significant coverage (i.e., detail) about Diez. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: We do apparently have a decent article for him in the German wikipedia. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Something here isn't as it should be: The {{old prod full}} wasn't shown on the talk page, now added. The {{PROD}} was allegedly invalid due to an older AFD page still existing on 2015-03-04 (?) But this AFD page is new, created by the nominator on 2015-03-10. Has somebody deleted an older AFD, and if yes, why? It's also unusual to blank major parts of an article before an AFD, this makes it rather hard for others to check how bad the blanked references actually were. I certainly missed it, and compared the remaining stub with dewiki and wikidata. But in this dispute between nominator and main author since 2012 the article sometimes reached epic lengths, and I'm now not more sure if size zero is the "best" size. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The ideal length is zero if notability cannot be demonstrated, and to date, despite practically pleading for evidence, notability hasn't even been faintly demonstrated. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answering my own old question: When I look at an old PRODded version that now removed (= contested) PROD tells me that it would be now invalid, because there was (or rather still is) now an AfD. Fatal error on my side, nothing to see, move on. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to demonstrate this, you even deleted the list of publications. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now is the time to attempt to demonstrate notability if you think you can. The window of opportunity is closing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to you to decide. Only our colleagues can do so. I can't do very much if somebody like you is allowed to delete everything step by step, reduce the article to nothing - and in the end you try to persuade everybody that all of Diez's achievements are not notable, or, if so, has no reliable sources, or, if so, is not in English, is not in the library of Congress or whatever reasons you will invent in the future. I can only hope for common sense - and a horse-sense for lack of fairness, chicanery and arbitrariness. Everybody can follow the article's story, compare the current status with the one in my sandbox. That's all it takes. The article in the form that you are responsible for is simply detrimental for Wikipedia. And believe me, that's really hurtful after eight years of work for this project. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To end up the demolition of a living personality, my work and the collaborative culture within Wikipedia, I would like to invite the wikipedia public to decide now with a clear yes or no what follows:

- Concerning the notability of a personality in the field of design and architecture it is now time to focus with the following questions...

1. Is a personality notable, if his work is published within the leading journal of architecture and design and other magazines?

Domus (magazine) ISBN: CORNELL 31924068467376 language: it date: 1993-10 753 DOMUS 6 OTTOBBE '33 DesignLabor, Bremerhaven (Brema), 1 maggio-16 luglio 1993 Sprtatfields, London, settembre-ottobre Curatori: Karin-Beate PhilHs, Liz Farrelly, Helmut Diez Allestimento: Helmut Diez, Henning Krohn, Thomas ... or in other leading magazines, like Blueprint (architecture magazine) or Der Spiegel [42]

2. Is a personality notable which organizes and designs the biggest show of British Design on the Continent?

″größte Werkschau britischer Möbeldesigner des 20. Jahrhunderts″ (Sonntagsmagazin, ARD 1993-05-05, KulturBuffet, N3, Gerd Röhlke, Jürgen Schöffel: Visions in the swim and VOX (features)).

"In the swim": in mostra 57 giovani designer inglesi, in: DOMUS, 753, Mailand, Oktober 1993, p. 6-7 (among the „curatori“ Helmut Diez, in addition responsible for „allestimento“ (Inszenierung)). Perspectives, in: Blueprint. The leading Magazine of Architecture and Design, London, june 1993 („The installation .. was realised by Designlabor's managing director Helmut Diez“). Blueprint. The Leading Magazine of Architecture and Design. British Design's big splash, in: Blueprint, june 1993, S. 6 („Design Labor’s Managing Director Helmut Diez“).

3. Is a personality notable which as the head of a relevant design institution developed the only German scholarship for postgraduates in Design and architecture?

„Diez hat ein Modell entworfen, in dem sich künftig Stipendiat/Innen "im Sinne einer Spitzenförderung" in Bremerhaven fortbilden sollen“ (Thomas Wolff: Floßfahrt per Computer, in: Tageszeitung, 20th of july 1994, p. 19).

4. Is a personality notable which is managing a design institution together with personalities like François Burkardt, former director of Paris's Centre Pompidou, editor of Domus, editor of Crossing etc.)? (Künstlerlexikon Saar: Burkhardt, François)

5. Is a personality notable which is directing design workshops with more than 50 Designers and heads of leading global furniture producers like Carl Magnusson, Phillip Thonet (managing shareholder of Gebrüder Thonet etc.)

„Another element of the nexus of mutual benefit was the workshops, held at the show's opening weekend. An impressive group of international industrialists - Carl Magnusson, president of design for Knoll international, Sergio Buttiglieri, productmanager for Driade/Aleph, Anthologie-Quartett's art director Rainer Krause, Phillipe Thonet from Thonate, and Paul Jensen, Fritz Hansen's international sales director - worked with the designers over two days, examining the pieces and discussing their suitability for marketing. A highly charged and intensely creative atmosphere was generated...“, DOMUS No. 753/Album, Gio Ponti, Oktober 1993, S. 6-7.

„Diez invited manufacturers with contrasting product ranges and philosophies including Paul Mygind Jensen from Fritz Hansen, Philippe Thonet, Sergio Buttiglieri of Driade, Rainer Krause of Anthologie Quartett and Carl Magnusson of Knoll (company)Knoll...“ (Blueprint 1992, p. 72.)

6. Is a personality notable which develops together with postgraduates on a pre-competitive basis an important regional traffic system - like a longitudinal high speed ferry system with all components - ships, tidal jetty systems, frequencies, integration into regional traffic systems, marketing concept and realizing consortium ?

Weserbus: Working on water, in: FX Magazine, Fast and Forward, february 1995, p. 23. "Laborleiter Helmut Diez" (Frische Brise statt Abgasmief. Der "Weserbus" legt an – zunächst mal als Designstudie für ein neues Verkehrssystem, in: Die Tageszeitung, 16th of july 1994, p. 35).

7. Is a personality notable which erects a new pre-competitive studying field like Sound Design - 20 years ago?

"60 % der Menschen leiden unter vegetativen Störungen durch akustische Umweltverschmutzung", sagt der Leiter des Designlabors Bremerhaven, Helmut Diez … Klanggestaltung heißt das Studienfeld …, das dem Lärm des Maschinenzeitalters zu Leibe rücken will.“ (Hagen Hastert: Das Geräusch als Nervenprobe. Klang-Gestaltung, Designlabor BHV, in: Die Tageszeitung, 19th of january 1993, p. 20).

8. Is a personality notable which develops an analytical matrix after extracting hundreds of labour medical studies concerning still millions of people worldwide bearing heavy loads and which develops design strategies to minimize risks - as a governmental study featured by the government of North Rhine Westfalia? (Leitbilder sozialverträglicher Technikgestaltung - Ergebnisbericht des Projektträgers zum NRW-Landesprogramm Sozialverträgliche Technik — Gestaltung und Bewertung -

Humanisierungstechniken für den Bereich Heben und Tragen schwerer Lasten, Institut für Arbeit und Technik, bis 2005, ISBN 3-89368-014-4.

9. Is a personality notable which designs a hotel on high standard within a treehouse concept and which gains a worldwide feedback from Japan to New York, being awarded and ranges among the top ten worldwide, finding its way into two important book publications within shortest time? (Philip Jodidio:: Architecture Now! Small is Beautiful), [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] ("Interior Design: Helmut Diez, Bremen").

10. Is a personality notable which plans and influences the city development of Istanbul since 2003 and which is now involved again as the head of his own consortium in the masterplanning for the most historical part of the Mediterranean Sea - of Constantinople, Byzantium, Istanbul

The topics 1 to 7 were realized by Helmut Diez within less than two years of his worklife. The study in question 8 took him half a year. The project under n. 9 lasted 4 months. - His life-project in Istanbul takes him now 12 years.

Please let me as wikipedia author of more than 800 articles in the German wikipedia put now two questions to our community:

A. Is the article shown currently and thanks to Rhode Island Red under Helmut Diez bearable for wikipedia? - Yes or no?

B. And is Helmut Diez notable to be subject of an English wikipedia article? - Yes or no?

And as a summary: Helmut Diez is not a specialist but a generalists with interdivisionary and visionary approaches in different fields - above is only shown a selection of design and architectural works. He is head of a THINK TANK - and not easy to press into narrow categories.

That's what everybody has to think about, not about the usual tricks and contortions of Rhode Island Red. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice if you could have simply posted that without the personal barb against me, but oh well; hopefully you'll com to your senses and learn to be civil eventually. Can you answer one simple question before we start sifting through the rubble -- i.e., what are you claiming the subject is notable as? You've thrown in everything but the kitchen sink above and it looks like the building blocks of a resume, not an encyclopedia article. Again, what are you claiming is the primary area of the subjects' notability; how would that first summary sentence look: "Helmut Diez is...X,y, z"? During the DRN you asserted that he's notable as a "record producer and artist", but that assertion did not stand up to scrutiny,[48][49] and now you seem to have abandoned that angle entirely.

The links you provided above seem to imply that you now think he's notable for something else (a design gallery manager? a developer of "analytical matrices"? A "regional traffic system" developer?) but what that is is unclear. Also the sources you provided above do not include any legitimate hyperlinked content. None of the links you provided even mention Diez. The other sources are offline German sources and you did not provide any direct quotes to support your assertions. That will be necessary at a minimum to vene begin to attempt to sort out what you've posted. This is the same process we tried to get you to go through on the Talk page and in DRN, and you've been either unwilling or unable to comply. The onus is clearly on you to establish clear notability and proper detail and context for the content which you are hoping to include. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should not mix up three questions again. The first thing that the comunity should decide - and please, shut up until we have heard what the comunity decides - is, if a personality with the achievements mentioned above is notable or not. If not: deletion, if yes: sources and reliability of those sources. You have shown, that every other way is a long path of traps. And we should no longer waste our time. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am part of the community of which you speak, and you don't do yourself any favors by telling WP editors to shut up. I am not the only editor to question the notability of Diez; pretty much everyone who has commented to date has done so. Ten trivial accomplishments don't add up to one notable accomplishment, so I am asking again, what is Diez putative primary area of notability in your eyes? What will would the opening sentence of the article look like, e.g., Diez is...?" Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given what you've written above about Diez, it seems like you might have more luck trying to write an article about IPM (assuming it's notable) and weaving Diez into the narrative. He definitely doesn't not seem notable enough in his own right for a stand alone bio. WP doesn't really have a category for "generalists", at least not for jacks of al trades who haven't accomplished anything notable by WP standards. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have tried this kind of manipulation with other authors in the same manner. Let the community decide. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to take a less adversarial tone and focus on the editorial issues at hand. There is no justification for some of the things you've been saying, which are crossing into the the realm of personal attacks and harassment. Seriously, kindly try to temper your frustration and be more diplomatic in your approach. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your recurrent thematic question above, i.e., "Is a personality notable if..." the answer in every case is probably not, but perhaps. You'd have to provide much more context and more detailed excerpts of the relevant text. From what I've seen above, my answer would be no. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop repeating your opinion again and again. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply answered the question you posed above. You seem to be playing the game of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The community keeps saying the same thing to you over and over and you keep ignoring it. The moderator at DRN pointed out the key problems with the article and you've done nothing to correct them.[50][51] Someone filed a frivolous ANI, and even that brought the same feedback, which you again are ignoring: "The 'good version' needs to be better sourced as was pointed out by Rhode Island Red here. My suggestion is that the user who brought the ANI close the discussion with apology for inadequate sourcing, fix the sourcing problems, show us a 'good version' that is properly sourced, and let us see where we are then."[52] You still have not come anywhere close to demonstrating notability of the bio subject; the text is still largely incomprehensible, and the article still reads like a poorly written inadequately sourced resume -- it falls far short of meeting WP standards in pretty much every respect. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We know your personal opinion. Stop wasting our colleagues' time. The probably better version is here, but that's also mentioned above. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just my opinion. It's the same opinion expressed by at least 3 editors that have looked into this so far. I pointed this out above but you seem to not want to listen. Seems like you have finished presenting evidence that you deem to demonstrate notability. IMO, you have not come any closer to doing so. Fortunately the article has been relisted for deletion to generate a more thorough consensus. That's a good thing. Let's see how it plays out. I'll remind you again to tone the hostility. Kindly restrict your comments to content, not other editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know what the article talks about near Porst group, but this is a red link on enwiki, nobody outside of the former West Germany or younger than 50 years has the faintest idea about this "communist" experiment, and it can't be covered in an article about Helmut Diez or FWIW dolphins.

Something like "regional relevance" might exist, there is no deletion request on dewiki. Any red links incl. one red link with a reference in the lede <shudder /> should go for the duration of the AfD, and if some sections end up with no reference they should also go for the duration. You can re-insert it later if the result is "keep", at the moment it's counter-productive. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I've read all of the comments above and I find no compelling reason to keep this BLP.
- Each WP has its own standards and there are thousands of articles on English WP that don't appear on the German WP and vica versa. So having a German WP article is meaningless in this discussion.
- I haven't seen any original sources in the English language. While WP allows secondary sources in other languages when no English source is available, this article, if allowed, would be based solely on non-English sources most of which would not have a URL to allow Google translation. I find this to seriously compromise WP:V which is a pillar of this project.
- The minor, less than one sentence mentions in several books cited by one of the KEEP votes above in no way confers notability. Sources that refer to Diez as a "staff consultant" or "managing director" of a non-notable magazine are not the basis for an article..
- Other links provided by other editors are equally non-notable and in many instances I can't even find Diez's name on the page(s) being linked to.
- WP:Notability (people) "requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" I don't see anything even approaching significant coverage in any of the more than one dozen sources I have taken the time to research, translate and examine.
- Furthermore, since no comprehensive biographical source has been provided (despite specific requests) I question whether all of these minor mentions of someone named Helmuth Diez are the same person.
- Lastly, since the most common claim for Diez's notability is his creative work I think WP:Artist applies. That guideline says that to qualify for notability an artist must be:
  - regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  - known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  - created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  - The person's work (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
I don't see any way that this person meets our English WP guidelines for notability and inclusion. I therefore support the deletion of this article and and end to this drama which has crossed multiple venues and wasted a lot of editor time. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more with Keithbob's deft synopsis. It echoes what I've been saying about this BLP subject for quite some time now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Keithbob, your intervention here casts doubts on your neutrality during the DRN. That's a pity. - Indirectly you don't accept german sources, and you don't really accept offline sources. If the majority of the boys here simply makes up a congregation of only english readers, only screen readers and nobody dares to enter a library, Wikipedia will become an addendum of Google. Good luck! --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember: "Editors should not use machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people." ([53]) --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I did not want to alter the original text, I mentioned three times that you should visit my sandbox. There, you'll find everything that makes Diez notable, including reliable sources. A list of my "unreliable" sources is going to follow. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last not least, Keithbob, again you simply mix up "artists" with "Creative professionals", that means, as you can see following your own link: "Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals". Isn't it simply an arbitrary choice to select the artist? Although everybody can see that Diez was creative in several fields and a very pioneering author, head of a think tank? In front of this background, each administrator should keep in mind the following criteria:

"# The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last hints, probably not without relevance for our administrators, just to show that most of the above mentioned "reasons" are simply not true. The article in my sandbox contains seven sources in English in the footnotes alone, although this is not necessary, and about thirty in German. Here we go:

DOMUS No. 753/Album, Oktober 1993, p. 6-7

Weserbus: Working on water, in: FX Magazine (ed.): Fast and Forward, february 1995, p. 23

Perspectives, in: Blueprint. The leading Magazine of Architecture and Design, London, Juni 1993 ("The installation .. was realised by Designlabor's managing director Helmut Diez")

British Design's big splash, in: Blueprint, june 1993, p. 6 ("Design Labor’s Managing Director Helmut Diez").

"… and The music is packed with ideas which address jazz as being at the centre of a web of musical approaches which all have a bearing on the next music’s next move (or two). The computer and Emulator are perfectly contextualized, the large ensemble .. integrate with an unprecedented sensitivity …" (Tom Corbin, in: The Wire, issue 70/71, 1990

Resort Baumgefluester, Departures

Baumraum: Tree Whisper Tree-House Hotel, Bad Zwischenahn, Germany, in: Philip Jodidio (ed.): Taschen, 2014, pp. 266-271.

German (not complete):

Cited for example by Armin Höland, Jürgen Daviter, Volkmar Gessner, Zentrum für Europäische Rechtspolitik, European Commission (ed.): Forschungs- und Aktionsprogramm zur Entwicklung des Arbeitsmarktes. Rechtliche, steuerliche, soziale und administrative Hindernisse für die Entwicklung örtlicher Beschäftigungsinitiativen, vol. II: Fortführung von Krisenunternehmen durch die Belegschaften, Luxemburg 1986, p. 34 (online, pdf).

Rainer Duhm, Eckhardt Hildebrandt, Ulrich Mückenberger, Eberhardt Schmidt (ed.): Wachstum alternativ. Kritisches Gewerkschaftsjahrbuch 1983/84, Berlin 1984, p. 55ff., esp. p. 62.

Otto König, Adi Ostertag, Hartmut Schulz: "Unser Beispiel könnte ja Schule machen!". Das "Hattinger Modell" Existenzkampf an der Ruhr, Bund-Verlag, 1985

Filmed at Hattingen (Der Konsul ist schon lange tot. Betriebsbesetzung bei Mönninghoff in Hattingen, part of Diez's speach - "Helmut Diez - Betriebsberater" - starting at 1:30:37.

Rainer Duhm, Désirée Kamm: Wenn Belegschaften ihre Betriebe übernehmen. Probleme und Chancen selbstverwalteter Fortführung von Krisenbetrieben, Francfort, New York 1990, e.g. p. 95ff.

Rainer Duhm: Andere Produkte anders produzieren. Die Bremer Voith-Belegschaft auf dem Weg in die Selbstverwaltung, in: Rainer Duhm, Eckhardt Hildebrandt, Ulrich Mückenberger, Eberhardt Schmidt (edd): Wachstum alternativ. Kritisches Gewerkschaftsjahrbuch 1983/84, Berlin 1984, p. 32–54

"Laborleiter Helmut Diez" (Frische Brise statt Abgasmief. Der "Weserbus" legt an – zunächst mal als Designstudie für ein neues Verkehrsystem, in: Die Tageszeitung, 16th of july 1994, p. 35).

Erstarrte Welle ... Eine Möbel-Werkschau in Bremerhaven zeigt neues britisches Spitzendesign, in: Der Spiegel, 3rd of may 1993. There it says: "vom DesignLabor Bremerhaven veranstaltet[en] Schau" and "Bei der größten Werkschau britischer Möbelformer, die jemals auf dem europäischen Kontinent stattgefunden hat" (transl.: At the greatest 'Werkschau' that ever happened on the european continent).

"Der ‚Unauflöslichkeit zwischen Kunst und Frieden‘ war die Aktion gewidmet, in deren Rahmen der Kulturpreis der Villa Ichon erstmals verliehen wurde. Für die Friedensinitiative Ostertor nahmen Peter Abromeit, Helmut Diez und Gustav Gisiger den mit 10.000 Mark dotierten Preis entgegen.“ (Kunst als lebendige Bestürzung. Kunstpreis der Villa Ichon erstmals an Theater Friedensaktion verliehen, in: Weserkurier, 14th of march 1983).

Außergewöhnliches Hotel in Bad Zwischenahn Insa Otteken eröffnet erste Baumhaus-Suiten

Resort Baumgeflüster ("Interior Design: Helmut Diez").

book review

Freeport L’affaire Flibustier, in: Jazzthetik, march 1990; there it says: "ein gewaltiges Werk … produced by Helmut Diez"

Humanisierungstechniken im Bereich Heben und Tragen schwerer Lasten. Konzeptstudie für Produktinnovationen, ed.: Minister für Arbeit, Gesundheit und Soziales des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen ("Projektbearbeiter: Helmut Diez")

Here Diez's publications:

Works

Gründung eines Belegschaftsvereins, in: Otto König, Adi Ostertag, Hartmut Schulz: "Unser Beispiel könnte ja Schule machen!". Das "Hattinger Modell" Existenzkampf an der Ruhr, Bund-Verlag, 1985, pp. 156–163. ISBN 978-3-76630-924-2
"Helmut Diez, Belegschaftsberater": "Angst vor dem langen Feierabend". Die Berufsbildungsstätte, in: Otto König, Adi Ostertag, Hartmut Schulz: "Unser Beispiel könnte ja Schule machen!". Das "Hattinger Modell" Existenzkampf an der Ruhr, Bund-Verlag, 1985, pp. 186–95. ISBN 978-3-76630-924-2
with Michael Grauvogel: Ratgeber für Belegschaften, Münster 1983.^[1]
with Michael Grauvogel: Gründung eines Belegschaftsvereins, in: Hans Ziegenfuß, Heiner Heseler, Hans-Jürgen Kröger (ed.): "Wer kämpft kann verlieren, wer nicht kämpft hat schon verloren", Hamburg 1984, pp. 259–60. ISBN ISBN 3-87975-259-1
with Michael Grauvogel: Als sie aber vor die Tore der Fabrik gesetzt wurden, gewannen sie mehr freie Zeit als ihnen lieb war, Resumée in: Rainer Duhm, Eckhardt Hildebrandt, Ulrich Mückenberger, Eberhardt Schmidt (ed.): Wachstum alternativ. Kritisches Gewerkschaftsjahrbuch 1983/84, Berlin 1984 (60 pages) ISBN 978-3-8802-2084-3
Humanisierungstechniken für den Bereich Heben und Tragen schwerer Lasten, Institut für Arbeit und Technik, im Auftrag des Ministers für Arbeit, Gesundheit und Soziales des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Hamburg, march 1987. (110 pages) ISBN 978-3-8797-5259-1
with Désirée Kamm, Corinna Ligowski, Jürgen Dohrmann: Auswirkungen des Beschäftigungsförderungsgesetzes, in: Arbeitsrecht im Betrieb 1991, p. 409-11.
Die Kooperativ-Service-GmbH, in: Marlene Kück, Achim Lösch (ed.): Finanzierungsmodelle selbstverwalteter Betriebe, Campus Francfort/New York 1987, pp. 209–18. ISBN 978-3-5933-3785-2
Karin-Beate Phillips, Liz Farrelly, Blueprint, London and Helmut Diez, Designlaobor Bremerhaven: In the Swim. An Exhibition of Creative Design from the British European Design Group. Ausstellung im DesignLabor Bremerhaven vom 2. Mai bis 30. Juni 1993, Catalogue as special edition of Blueprint. Zeitschrift für Architektur und Design, 1993. (WorldCat)
Kriterien zur Leistungsbeurteilung von Hilfswerken, Gemeinnützigkeit und Management, Unabhängiger Informationsdienst, Gabler Verlag, Nr. 41 (1997)
with Peter Behr, Bianka Hofmann, Michael Scheer: First Flow. Der erste Kontakt mit Pilotwalen, Bremen: Behr, Hofmann U. Scheer Gb, 2001.^[2] ISBN 3-00-007619-0
Contribution for Golden Horn Project, Music and movie by Helmut Diez

Bibliography

Wolfgang J. Schmidt-Reinecke (ed.): Skizzen und Porträts aus Bremerhaven, Publicon-Verlag, Freiburg 1994, p. 46 (ISBN 9783929092400 and 3-929092-40-9).

My last question: Why are there only english speaking votings, exactly those guys that don't understand the text, the sources, the underlying culture? And even our own regulations! --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cited for example by Armin Höland, Jürgen Daviter, Volkmar Gessner, Zentrum für Europäische Rechtspolitik, Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (ed.): Forschungs- und Aktionsprogramm zur Entwicklung des Arbeitsmarktes. Rechtliche, steuerliche, soziale und administrative Hindernisse für die Entwicklung örtlicher Beschäftigungsinitiativen, vol. II: Fortführung von Krisenunternehmen durch die Belegschaften, Luxemburg 1986, p. 34 (online, pdf).
^ Review by Jan Herrmann for Cetacea.de. Wale, Delfine und Menschen.

Please add the ISBN numbers to the relevant section in the article. And check that the author or co-author is really Helmut Diez, books featuring or mentioning Diez don't belong into the same section as books written by Diez. If the article survives this AFD it should be a decent BLP per WP:BLP, not some epic link collection. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This "epic" link collection has its roots in Rhode Island Red's distrust and his contortions, and I was forced to "source" nearly everything. Believe me, this is only a selection. In the list of his works you will find only works by H. D. and works that he has written together with the mentioned authors. And these publications are noteworthy because they were pioneering in their fields of research. Question: Why should I insert the ISBN numbers, if they are in his work's list? As far as I can see, there is only one title with an ISBN in the footnote section. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform you: The only reason why I did not (yet) replace the article with the one in my sandbox is the very bad experience that Rode Island Red is allowed to revert anything I change. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“Dear Keithbob, your intervention here casts doubts on your neutrality during the DRN.”

Please comment on content and editorial issues, not other editors. You have been cautioned about this repeatedly.

“Indirectly you don't accept german sources, and you don't really accept offline sources. If the majority of the boys here simply makes up a congregation of only english readers, only screen readers and nobody dares to enter a library”

You have been told repeatedly that German sources are acceptable in theory, but the ones you have presented to date are all offline and seem to contain only incidental mention of the subject (some don’t even mention the subject at all). I am yet to see a single statement in any of these sources that established notability. Putting the onus on WP editors to track down obscure offline sources in German, many or most of which are not even available in any public library in the U.S., violates the spirit of WP:V.

“these publications are noteworthy because they were pioneering in their fields of research.”

Noteworthy and pioneering to whom exactly? You have made this assertion repeatedly, but the evidence you have provided to date does not support the opinion of a lone WP editor. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I really make the impression that I wanted to talk with you? --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose not address the concerns raised, it will make the process of deleting due to lack of notability that much simpler. As Keithbob said it's time to put an "end to this drama which has crossed multiple venues and wasted a lot of editor time." Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the following source cited by Hans:

“Cited for example by Armin Höland, Jürgen Daviter, Volkmar Gessner, Zentrum für Europäische Rechtspolitik, European Commission (ed.): Forschungs- und Aktionsprogramm zur Entwicklung des Arbeitsmarktes. Rechtliche, steuerliche, soziale und administrative Hindernisse für die Entwicklung örtlicher Beschäftigungsinitiativen, vol. II: Fortführung von Krisenunternehmen durch die Belegschaften, Luxemburg 1986, p. 34 (online, pdf).”

This is exactly the kind of substandard sourcing that’s causing problems and wasting our time. The only mention of Diez in that entire 284 page document is a footnote which says simply: “aus: Helmut Diez, Michael Grauvogel, Ratgeber für Belegschaften, MS 1983”.

Hans clearly doesn’t understand WP’s sourcing policy despite having had it explained to him over and over again ad nauseam. It seems to be a striking case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This tail chasing exercise really needs must come to a close quickly lest we waste any more resources on this fruitless quest. The antagonistic comments he keeps making about other editors only adds fuel to the fire and makes our task more difficult -- it is WP:TE to the extreme.[54][55][56][57][58][59] Rhode Island Red (talk)

That is exactly one of these cases, where your lack of foreign languages missleads you. You don't understand that this is a schema, central for this article about innovation, produced for the European Commission. You are unable to read the sources properly. By the way Michael Grauvogel was vice-president of the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen until 2013. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with my understanding of German. It has to do with your misunderstanding of what constitutes notability according to WP policy. The source you presented doesn't even include a single sentence of information about Diez. It merely contains a single footnote on a single page that lists nothing more than his name, once. That is not substantial coverage and it does not demonstrate notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this has something to do with your understanding of German. Otherwise you would have realized that the paper by Diez and Michael Grauvogel cited by the European Commission contributed in no small degree to their decisions. As far as I can see, there is also an article about one of Diez's recent design projects in the manager magazine Creditreform, published by the prestigious Handelsblatt, saying that Diez created, with architect Andreas Wenning, four tree houses. See [60]. Furthermore, the book In the Swim: An Exhibition of Creative Design from the British European Design Group shows that Diez is internationally recognized as a designer. See [61]. And he is listed as the director of a design institute in the European Design Guide. At least, all this suggests that he is notable enough for an entry in the English Wikipedia. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course, this has something to do with your understanding of German. Otherwise you would have realized that the paper by Diez and Michael Grauvogel cited by the European Commission contributed in no small degree to their decisions.”

Again, it’s not my understanding of German that’s the problem. The claim you make above is WP:OR. Nowhere in the document does it include the statement you made. Those are your words, not the words of the source; that’s the problem.

“As far as I can see, there is also an article about one of Diez's recent design projects in the manager magazine Creditreform, published by the prestigious Handelsblatt, saying that Diez created, with architect Andreas Wenning, four tree houses. See [62].”

I wouldn’t say there’s anything prestigious about the article or the source, and it’s only a two-paragraph blurb that mentions Diez’s name in passing once in reference to the tree house suites. According to previous iteration of the Diez bio, he was responsible for the interior design.[63] I wouldn’t dismiss this as a potentially usable source. It’s one of the only ones presented yet that’s available online. But it doesn’t provide significant depth of coverage nor does it establish notability according to WP:BIO. I’ts still not clear what the primary basis is for Diez putative notability. If it’s doing interior design on these treehouse suites, I don’t think that’s going to pass the test.

"Furthermore, the book In the Swim: An Exhibition of Creative Design from the British European Design Group shows that Diez is internationally recognized as a designer. See [64]. At least, all this suggests that he is notable enough for an entry in the English Wikipedia"

Can you provide a specific portion of the book’s text says that Diez is internationally recognized as a designer, or are those your words again? The point of this exercise is to put forth specific (and reliably sourced) text. A WordCat bibliographic entry alone isn’t helpful for the purpose of this exercise, and it doesn’t demonstrate notability. Also, remember that WP:NPF states: "...exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." So unless Diez's primary basis for notability is as an interior designer, it wouldn't qualify for inclusion. The current version of the article contains a hodgepodge list of disparate and unrelated activities, and none of them really seem notable at all; tree house interior design included. A jack of all trades perhaps, but apparently not a master of any, at least judging by the shallow depth of coverage he's received. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert on Diez and I do not own a copy of the design catalog, In the Swim. So I cannot cite from this book. But I can read German texts, and the many sources given by Hans-Jürgen Hübner suggest that the man is notable for his life's work as a designer, entrepreneur, professional consultant, and coach, as he was, and is, responsible for many different projects in Germany and abroad. Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a repetition of "reasons". Online sources are not necessary. Please visit a library. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop personalizing the discussion. Discuss content only.

Everybody can read that it's always your behavior that I've got in mind. I had to learn that you are not interested in fairness or the truth, or even the sake of this project. You believe in the force of contortions and lawyering and you acted the same way in other occasions for years. To give only a few examples:

Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2012/August, Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2012/September, Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2013/April, Talk:Gotthard_Graubner

This might give our readers an idea, why it is senseless to discuss with you, Rhode Island Red. You have simply no idea of notability, you are too illiterate for an adequate participation in important fields, you are too lazy to visit a library. With only three hours of reserch you try to destroy a work of months. That's what you don't want to hear, but that's why I believe, that nobody should try to discuss with you on the grounds of AGF in the future. And: Of course it's still important to discuss with the rest of the audience! N. b.: Even if I have criticized Keithbob, I still believe in his good faith. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)|}[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD is in desperate need of collapses.― Padenton|✉ 01:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think, everything is said and done now. Every neutral and openminded Wikipedian, who is prepared to take action solely for the sake of this phantastic project, has got a sufficient basis for an adequate decision now. The last thing I can offer is to replace the very old version with the new one in my sandbox. I will leave Germany for a couple of days on monday, and I am not shure, if I'll have WLAN overthere. Anyway, Thanks a lot for your patience. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Wikipedia's fundamental principles, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. This is a bloated mess of overblown puffery misrepresenting sources and exaggerating achievements. get rid of it. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2015 (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 Ever After High. The list's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ever After High characters

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced recreation of an article previously deleted following discussion Seems promotional Flat Out let's discuss it 06:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if I should !vote here since I am aware of this article because I have been attempting to suppress a rampant sockpuppet operator. I will comment though that from February 27, 2015 until March 5, 2015 when page protection was granted, the chief contributors to this article were obvious sockpuppets of Gabriella~four.3-6 a user who has a particular interest in the Ever After High series (and other Monster High properties) and in the repeated submission of crush-cruft to children's articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb have you cu'd article creator. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flat Out: Nah. I don't have reason to believe they are the same person. The sock I suspect of being in her teens, where the article creator has been active since 2007. It seems unlikely that they are one and the same. And if they are, I have not yet seen the behavioral similarities. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding sockpuppet allegations and/or WP:G4 issues, this content should first exist at Ever After High#Characters, which is empty but a {{main}} now, with critically trimmed text and heavily improved sourcing. Other than that, let speediable issues prevail. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. They have been introducing new characters in the toyline and webisodes. The page was created so that the main page wouldn't get crowded with all this info. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Çomment -Rtkat3 its good to want to keep the other article free of all this info, but at this article It's an entirely unsourced article.Flat Out let's discuss it 03:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An entire wiki already exists for the series, and it's always troubling to see the characters list is 20 times bigger than the main article. If it is going to stay, the textwall character descriptions need serious editing. Nate • (chatter) 01:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't have any objections to perhaps listing like the 5 main characters with perhaps a one-lined summary at the Ever After High article, But as it stands right now this article's extremely long and it being unsourced doesn't help, Anyone wanting to see the entire list should visit IMDb or Wikia. –Davey2010^Talk 02:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the main characters in to Ever After High and delete the rest (Sorry I just realized my !vote was somewhat confusing so hopefully cleared that up ). –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ever After High selectively - only merge main characters and trim the rest: see WP:LISTN: coverage of the group only in user-generated sources, none/very little coverage of the group in reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 02:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The information that is usable in the main article may make it better. AlbinoFerret 19:11, 30 March 2015 (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ståle Økland

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

Not Notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Delete. The news references seem to be run-of-the mill and do not confer Notability (although I don't read Norwegian very well). GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't even have a listing in either of the Norwegian-language Wikipedias. https://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=St%C3%A5le+%C3%98kland&go=Go or https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=St%C3%A5le+%C3%98kland&go=Go GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegians all read English very well, so I haven't prioritized the time to write a Norwegian version. I have spent a great amount of time making this description, Even updating it with the info on his latest book that was published last week.

I have included many references and links, and I strongly object both to this nomination, and to any attempt to delete my writing! Benedicte. Benedicteok (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At issue is whether he is notable per Wikipedia standards. The text of the article doesn't adequately explain why he's notable, and unfortunately the content of links is inaccessible for non-Norwegian speakers, making them more difficult to assess. The specific notability requirements for persons are in Wikipedia:Notability_(people). To save this article, you're going to need to give non-trivial references that establish one or more of these criteria. It may help if you can connect the dots for us (point out which refs establish which notability criteria).--Robin Thayler (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I have read through your helpful links and tried to update the page so that the links/references are also made directly in the text, trying to make the notability more clear. There are several links to german articles and pages, some Danish and also one in English. I have also made the page shorter and hopefully more to the point. What do you think now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedicteok (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria for authors The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now included more information, more links and linked this page to other relevant pages on English Wiki. Am I drawing closer to this discussion beeing over? Benedicteok (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

possible keep ran name through a news google search, produced pages of articles in Norwegian. ran a random sample of them through "translate" and, even in the rough, it was plain to see that his books and the ideas in them are being discussed - most often by those who disagree with him and the evidence he presents - but they are a topic in Norway. Not sure if there are actual profiles of him, which there should be to pass WP:GNG, E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2015 (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. Michig (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Story (album series)

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

This is a summary article for a series of albums/EPs by Shinhwa, all of which are notable and have their own articles (and yes, the articles are in sad shape; they're on my to-do list). Shinhwa also has a discography article. Basically this article isn't needed and says nothing that isn't already said elsewhere. It also kind of implies a relationship between the albums/EPs that maybe doesn't really exist. As the first line of the overview states, they have no connection other than sharing a name. Shinyang-i (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article serves as the parent article for Shinhwa's four Winter Story albums. They are related beyond their shared name; they together constitute all of Shinhwa's compilation albums from 2003 onwards. Shinhwa didn't just randomly choose unrelated albums to give all the same name. Neelix (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes or provides evidence for no such relationship. They aren't all the same theme, the same length, similar packaging, or anything that I could find. Maybe there are some sources out there that provide more info? I wasn't sure what about the 4 items items needed introduction that couldn't be (or wasn't already) said in their really-short main articles. On a side note, I hadn't considered them compilation albums, but in light of your comment I revisited the Wikipedia definition of the term and I guess they could be defined as such - I'd love your input on the talk pages (I made a discussion at Talk:Winter Story (2003 Shinhwa album)). ^^ Shinyang-i (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think I'm going to be of much help on the talk page discussion you mention; I don't read Korean, and I'm having trouble finding reliable English-language sources discussing these albums. It would seem very odd to me if Shinhwa chose to give different names to all of their albums except four, naming each of these four "Winter Story" but not wanting people to think of these four albums as conceptually linked. Apart from the seeming absurdity of these articles not constituting a series (and the possibility that all four can be considered compilation albums), I cannot provide any evidence that this is a series. Perhaps I would be able to do so if I had access to more sources or if I could read Korean, but, alas, I cannot. I am glad, however, to hear that you intend to improve the quality of these articles. Neelix (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get the context but I still don't find it relevant. Like all the page does is mention album sales and the fact that there is a larger theme, but doesn't indicate the significance of that theme. Is it literally that they were all released in winter? because that is not a statement deserving its own page, and could be mentioned on a discography page or even the main page. Asdklf; (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the article is useless, each album has its own separate page and the info on the page itself could be covered in a few sentences on the main page. AlbinoFerret 19:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Shinhwa. I am not seeing sources for independent, stand alone notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 31 March 2015 (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. postdlf (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa's Top Backstrokers

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

A lot of WP:ORIGINALSYN used here, no independent third party sources. Also fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable swimming topic. Subject does not satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, because the subject lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. As noted above, this article also suffers from original research issues per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Moreover, the article relies 100% on online raw statistical listings of FINA (the international swimming federation) and South Africa Swimming (the SA national swimming federation) -- neither of which provides any analysis of such stats -- neither of which is independent of the article subject. When establishing the notability of sports topics, we do not accept sources such MLB.com for baseball players, or NFL.com for American football players, because they are not independent of the subject players. This situation is no different. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry, I am a new Wikipedia user. This is my first article. I have addressed your issues. Regarding WP:ORIGINALSYN, I have divided the article body into 2 parts. The data for the first part is from the official FINA website. FINA is the international governing body of swimming, diving, water polo, synchronized swimming and open water swimming. The data for the second part is from the SwimSA website. The first reference is a link to the FINA website, the official "Swimming World Rankings". The second reference is a link to the Swimming South Africa rankings page. The third reference is the link to the official tool that FINA has developed to allow comparisons of results among different events. It does so by converting swimming times into points, which can then be compared in order to identify the top swimmer. I have attached an image to the page to illustrate how this is done. First I refer you to the FINA Swimming World Rankings page(reference 1). On this page, set 'Time Type' to 'individual', 'Federation' to 'South Africa', 'Continent' to 'All', 'Event' to 'Specific Individual Event -> '50 BK SC', 'Gender' to 'Male', 'Date' to 'Date Range: 01/05/2012 to 30/04/2013'. Leave the rest unchanged and click on 'SEARCH'. This returns a list of the top 50m Backstroke Male SC swimmers in South Africa. As you can see, this list is the same as the list at the top left of the image that is attached to the Wikipedia page. The swimmers' names and times correspond. Now go to the link on the Wikipedia page under reference 3. This opens a page called 'FINA Points Table'. On this page you can download the 'FINA Points Calculator'. Download this tool and open it using WinRar. With the Fina Points Calculator running, choose 'FINA Point Scoring 2012', '50 Backstroke', '25m Pool', Men, and enter the first time on the list ie. 24.25. Now click on 'Calculate'. This returns a points value. This points value corresponds to the points value on the Excel spreadsheet in the image. They are the same. I have created a red square around them to indicate that they correspond. This same procedure is followed for each of the 6 backstroke events, for every season. I refer you to the image on the Wikipedia page for the rest of the explanation. For each of the 6 backstroke events (per season), the swimmer, the time, and the points are listed. The Swimmer, Time, and Points values for each event are then listed under a single sorted list called 'SC Rankings(sorted by points)'. This list contains duplicates. To the right of this list is another list. This list is called 'SC Rankings (with duplicates removed)' and contains no duplicates. Because the data in this list is sorted, the 3 swimmers at the top of this list are the top 3 SC backstrokers. The names of the Top 3 SC swimmers (ie. Darren Murray, Gerhard Zandberg, and Garth Tune) are then used to create a new list called 'Top 3 SC Backstrokers'. The person at the TOP of this list (ie. number 1) is the Top SC Backstroker. In this case it is Darren Murray. The same process is followed to find the Top LC Backstroker. The Top LC Backstroker in this case is Gerhard Zandberg. In order to find the TOP backstroker overall, we take the 'SC Rankings (sorted by points)' and the 'LC Rankings (sorted by points)' lists and combine them to form a new list, 'Backstroke Rankings (sorted by points)'. We sort this list on points from largest to smallest. Now we remove the duplicates from the list at the bottom left corner of the image to form a new list called 'Backstroke Rankings (duplicates removed)'. The 3 backstrokers at the top of this list(Gerhard Zandberg, Ricky Ellis, and Charl Crous) are used to form a new list called 'Top 3 Backstrokers'. The person at the top of this list is the Top Backstroker overall. In this case it is Gerhard Zandberg. This represents the algorithm for finding the data for the season of 01 May 2012 to 30 April 2013. In order to find the data for all the seasons that are displayed on the Wikipedia page, we apply the same algorith that I just described to you to every season. For the first part of the article we applied the algorithm to the data from the FINA database (ie. the source referred to by reference 1). For the second part of the article we applied the algorithm to the data from the SwimSA database (ie. the source referred to by reference 2). Thus, the data is not original but it is instead based on the data in the FINA database and the SwimSA database. The data has merely been converted to a points value using an official tool called the 'FINA Points Calculator'. This tool was specifically designed for this purpose. You are welcome to verify the information, but I can assure you that the information on the Wikipedia page is 100% accurate. The reason that I created this page is because I noticed that people had difficulty figuring out how to find the top backstrokers because most people do not have specialized Excel knowledge. This page makes it possible for people without Excel knowledge to know who the top backstrokers in South Africa are, otherwise they would not know. I feel that this page should not be deleted because it helps the average backstroker who does not have Excel knowledge to know who the top backstrokers in South Africa are. Another thing that I would like to point out is that FINA is the ONLY national swimming organization (in the world) that Swimming South Africa submits data to. Not only that, but Swimming South Africa is the ONLY national swimming organization in South Africa. All provincial federations submit data to SwimSA. I have spoken to a few Swimming South Africa employees and the data has been verified at provincial level and at national level. The data used is thus very reliable and accurate. Also, FINA does have significant coverage as it is the main world wide swimming organization. I have only used these two sources because the provincial federations submit data to SwimSA and SwimSA submits data to FINA. Any other sources would be biased and reduce the accuracy of the data. Currently, the information on this Wikipedia page is 100% accurate and can be verified. I would also like to point out that I do have a BComm Degree in Economics, Econometrics, and Logistics Management (4 years) and a BSc Degree in Computer Science, Information Systems, Logic, and Artificial Intelligence (4 years). The SwimSA data is accurate, the FINA data is accurate, and my Excel work is also 100% accurate. Everything on the Wikipedia page 'South Africa's Top Backstrokers' is accurate. Definitely. If there are any other problems with the article please just let me know then I will try to correct them. Thank you, kind regards. Blueblood53 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Blueblood, I know you're new to Wikipedia. No one is questioning the accuracy/truthfulness of the article's facts, but that's not the problem here. On Wikipedia, there are other factors that determine the suitability of a topic for inclusion as a stand-alone Wikipedia article. I suggest that you review the applicable guidelines at WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTSTATS. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The question isn't whether or not the information is accurate, but whether if the page meets Wikipedia's standard for it to have its own page. I would say no. While it's obvious Blueblood has put in a lot of work in the respective page, I would say the page is nothing more than WP:IINFO. Philipmj24 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am going to be without a PC tomorrow but i will address these issues tomorrow evening or the day after. Kind regards. 197.87.109.162 (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey there! I understand your concerns and am now going to address them.

We have reached a consensus that the information in the article is accurate, but notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG . 1. "Significant coverage": This topic has received significant coverage in the past. Please watch the video at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn4j7dmziOQ. This is a Top Billing episode. Top Billing is a television program that is broadcasted by SABC (South African Broadcasting Corporation). SABC broadcasts 4 channels to the ENTIRE South African population (for free), as opposed to DSTV (Digital Satellite Television) which has multiple channels that are available ONLY on subscription. This topic was clearly mentioned on Top Billing. The person in the Top Billing interview is clearly identified by Top Billing as “South Africa’s Top Backstroke Swimmer” to the entire South African population (53 million people). The viewers of this program (Top Billing) currently have no way of verifying the accuracy of this country wide broadcast so it is necessary to have it on Wikipedia so that people (sponsors et al) can verify the information. 2. "Reliable": The sources that are referenced DO have editorial integrity that allow verifiable evaluation of notability. Reference 1: The source (SwimSA) is the ONLY official swimming federation in South Africa and all provincial federations submit their results to SwimSA. A SwimSA employee has told me that the information is 100% accurate and that the times have been verified by “The Provincial Officials Society, the Board, and by Swimming South Africa”. Reference 2: The source (FINA) describes itself as “FINA is the international governing body of swimming, diving, water polo, synchronized swimming and open water swimming.” They are the world’s major swimming organization and their published results would also be accurate. Reference 3: The source (The FINA Points Calculator) is based on the FINA Points Table. The application is available for download directly from the FINA website and is used by millions of swimmers worldwide. Thus ALL the sources referenced are reliable. 3. "Sources": The sources listed under references are primary sources ie. Raw data BUT there is a screenshot to illustrate how the information was calculated. The secondary source is thus the excel information that I have calculated. The Wikipedia notability guidelines state that the sources do NOT have to be available online. The information is verifiable because I have attached two screenshots to the article which serve as examples that can be used by viewers to easily verify the information if they want to. We have already reached consensus during this discussion that the information is indeed reliable. 4. "Independent of the subject": This work is considered independent because none of us are affiliated to the article’s subject. The work does not fall under advertising, press releases, autobiographies, or the subject’s website. 5. "Presumed": This means that an assumption was created that the article should be included as it provides a way to verify the claims made in the Top Billing episode. The Wikipedia article is based on reliable, published sources, and is expressed from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means that it is representing fairly, proportionately, and without bias. It is without bias because the calculations are mathematically verifiable and always yield the same unbiased result. The article does not violate the “what Wikipedia is not”, in particular the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is explained in more depth below (which addresses WP:IINFO). For the above reasons the topic DOES meet the general notability guideline ie. WP:GNG . The topic thus warrants its own article. I refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information . The data does provide encyclopedic value because the data has been put in the context of verifiable calculations which has been based on the data referenced to independent sources. The article is not: 1. A Summary-only description of works. The data is expanded into a form that allows swimming times to be compared across events by means of FINA points. The FINA points are then compared to reach an accurate ranking of the Top backstrokers per event. 2. A lyrics database as it contains no reference to or information about songs. 3. An excessive listing of statistics. Most of the statistical calculations (in Excel) are not visible to the reader. The reader only sees the end result of the calculations. Some of the statistical calculations are visible as attached images (2 images) because this allows the reader to understand the article. The article does not contain long and sprawling lists of statistics. The displayed information is not confusing to readers and is readable. The visible statistics are put into context for a general reader by the initial paragraph. It is necessary to display the data in the current form because it would be less understandable and more complicated to readers if displayed in paragraph form. All the excess statistics (Excel calculations) have already been omitted and the necessary data is summarized concisely. 4. An Exhaustive log of software updates. The article does not deal with software updates. For the above reasons, this article satisfies the requirement that “Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information” ie. It satisfies WP:IINFO . I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NLIST . The people in the list (individual items) contained within the article follow the Wikipedia content policy of Verifiability (the people are listed on the SwimSA and FINA websites that are used as references), No original research (the data used is based on the SwimSA and FINA databases. The times represent actual performances as measured by the swimming equipment.), Neutral point of view (The data is calculated in an objective and mathematical manner. The points are from the FINA points table. The sorting is done in Excel. The information is thus objective, neutral, and one will always end up with the same result.), plus the other content policies as well. Each item on the list is well referenced and the list as a whole represents a neutral point of view. The items (people) meet the requirements of Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy because people reading or editing the list can check the references to see that the information comes from a reliable source. All items (people) are relevant to the topic and are represented by a good source. The list involves living persons. It complies with the Biographies of living persons policy. I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTPURP . The list in the article is for Information purposes. It represents an information source. It is a structured list and is organized chronologically by season. I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSTATS . This has already been described above for WP:IINFO. Thank you for your kindness and cooperation. Blueblood53 (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - JMHamo, Dirtlawyer1, and Philipmj24. I have addressed your concerns. If there is anything else that I need to do to the article in order for it to be kept then please let me know soon so that I can do the improvements because the 7 days is almost over. If you don't then I will assume that you guys don't have any further concerns and that we have reached a consensus to keep the article. Thank you, kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblood53 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not your decision. An uninvolved Admin will review this and make a decision soon. JMHamo (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns, as stated above, remain: this topic is Not Notable under the general notable guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I know it's not my decision. I was implying that you guys must let me know if there are any other improvements that I must make in order for the article to be kept. Thanks. Blueblood53 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DirtLawyer1, here is an article from Business Day. http://www.bdlive.co.za/sport/othersport/2014/04/10/schoeman-shakes-off-challenge-by-le-clos. This is one of the biggest newspapers in the country. They refer to Chad le Clos as South Africa’s fastest backstroker, yet there is no evidence to support this as Chad doesn’t appear at the top of the rankings.

I have already referred you to the Top Billing episode. That was a nationwide broadcast, yet there is no evidence to support their claim that the featured backstroker has ever been the top backstroker because he has ranked at number 2 at best. Here is another article: http://www.zwemza.com/?p=11846. This is from ZwemZA, an Independent Swim News Site (it says this at the top of their website). It says that “by the time he was 20 he was ranked as the world’s top 50m backstroker”, thus implying he was South Africa’s top backstroker too. These claims are accurate. swimswam.com describe themselves as “Swim news, swimming videos, college swimming and Olympic swimming coverage, everything for the swimmer and the swim fan.” In this article, Charl Crous is referred to as South Africa’s top backstroker http://swimswam.com/spains-costa-schmid-swims-personal-best-at-mare-nostrum/ . This is inaccurate. Another article in The Times: http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/04/10/schoeman-halts-le-clos-victory-charge . They claim that Le Clos is the top backstroker in South Africa, but this is not the case because there are 6 backstroke events and the Top backstroker is found by comparing the best times across events by means of FINA points. Kind Regards. Blueblood53 (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – @Blueblood53:, the problem here is that this topic didn't exist until you defined it. Here at Wikipedia, we don't publish the results of our own research. Everything that we write is supposed to be based on what someone else has already written about. So when you say "This list was created ...", that's already an indication that this is your research, something that nobody has written about before. The effort is appreciated, but I think it would be better to start out by finding (not creating!) and adding information to existing topics. For example, our article on Charl Crous is pretty short. If you can find more information about him, like his biography, where he trains, etc. that would be very welcome. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Own research. Smartskaft (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Ponyo per CSD G5. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 18:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah (2015 film)

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

Unotable yet to be released film Wgolf (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NFF no significant coverage nor has it has entered into production. part of a series of spam promotion articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2015 (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. Currently, the community is unable to find whether or not this 501c(3) is notable enough to merit inclusion here. The AFDs nominator also (although in a non-standard way) withdrew their nomination. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance of Women Directors

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

I turned down a CSD A7 and a few of us (@Shirt58:, @MelanieN:) have had a look, but of all the sources we've uncovered, there doesn't seem to be much other than mentions of the variety of "x, who is a member of the Alliance of Women Directors". I think we could still mention the organisation in passing in a few biographies of its members that happen to be notable for other means, but there doesn't seem to be much in reliable sources to actually make an article stick. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The organization is fairly new, maybe that's why it hasn't garnered much in the way of coverage at this time. I was unable to think of a suitable redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the points made but this organization is incredibly relevant and important to the film industry. Given how few women's voices there are in the industry and this is one of the only organization's doing anything about it I find it highly suspect that the only system for determining its importance and relevance is precise references to on other web articles. This is why this is so important & relevant - http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/dga-study-women-and-minority-directors-face-significant-hiring-disadvantage-at-entry-level-20150109 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjenred5 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Just to pick a random other page on wiki that has been approved, apparently the video game Skull & Crossbones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_%26_Crossbones) is important & relevant but The Alliance of Women Directors is not? These judgement calls are neither neutral nor absent of perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjenred5 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jjenred5: the article Skull & Crossbones has been also flagged for AfD — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than a Speedy Deletion, why not take a week or so to try to improve the article? Carl Henderson (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other points of relevance (sorry I don't know how to format on this)... http://www.networkisa.org/podcast.php?id=2466

How to Hire a Woman Director http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/guest-post-how-to-hire-a-woman-director-20150225

Study on Women in Film Confirms the Worst http://www.indiewire.com/article/sorry-ladies-study-on-women-in-film-and-television-confirms-the-worst-20150210

Women Directed Top Films http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/women-directed-17-of-the-top-250-grossing-films-of-2014-20150108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjenred5 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is today attracting considerable traffic on Twitter, with supporters of the Alliance of Women Directors either prematurely decrying the article's removal or assailing its proposed deletion. None of these supporters seems to have the slightest familiarity with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I appreciate the passions this AfD has aroused, but respectfully suggest that newcomers acquaint themselves with our relevant guideline before commenting. WikiCVU (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AWD was established in 1997. That means it is older than Wikipedia. It is possible that plenty of reliable sources may be found if authors peruse beyond the first page of a Google search. Keep the article and encourage authors to seek out reliable references from relevant persons in the industry. Keep track on the talk page if need be. As for notability, their industry affiliations are notable enough to demand further inquiry. I have little doubt that such an organization would not survive ~18 years in film if it lacked relevance. General popularity is not the primary standard that should be used for industry groups. For example, I doubt many would recognize AIChE or ASME outside of engineering, yet their importance begs recognition in a resource claiming to be as comprehensive as Wikipedia. I posit that the same general confinement of notoriety to those within the relevant industry is the cause for the lack of easily available reliable references. Try asking some directors who are members of AWD if casual searches are not turning up anything. Xenomancer (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please take another look at this article now. This afternoon (03-18-15), myself and several other editors have gone over it improved it, removed some of the PR-speak, and added references to some reliable sources. I think it would easily pass the AFD hurdle now. Carl Henderson (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Myself and other editors have worked more on the AWD article over the past few days. I took a final pass at it myself tonight, doing some reorganization, adding a few new sources, and fleshing out a Programs section on what the AWD does for its members. If you are on the fence, or leaning towards delete, please give it one more look. Thanks! Carl Henderson (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets guideline after recent edits. ukexpat (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is irritating that it's even being discussed. The article already has citations and it's a legitimate non-profit group registered with the state and mentioned in The Daily Variety. As someone who's tried MANY times to contribute to Wikipedia and has had legitimate citations removed, it really continues to prove to me that Wikipedia is run by a small elite group who is "writing" history based on some sort of unseen agenda. As a college professor, we already steer students away from Wikipedia as a source for any research and this simply confirms why that needs to continue. Our school librarian gives lectures as to why Wikipedia needs to be avoided. It's instances like this that confirm it. When a legitimate 501(c)3 is being pulled for being too "young" after 12 years of operation and mention in the trade papers it shows that only "special" topics (those chosen by the elite, hidden group behind Wikipedia) are really steering this story - and altering it to their liking.Planetprods (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)PlanetProds (a college professor)[reply]

Why is it irritating that this is being discussed? Being a legitimate non-profit with a mention in a publication does NOT make it automatically notable. Also if you really are a college professor you would know that the reasons for "avoiding" Wikipedia have nothing to do with this discussion. In fact, this whole process helps STRENGTHEN wikipedia. Wikipedia is not to be used as a reference or source, it does not mean that it doesn't have it's place. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re "some sort of unseen agenda": Let's get one thing straight: There is nothing "unseen" or "hidden" about the inclusion criteria here. They are spelled out quite clearly at the General Notability Guideline and, for organizations, specifically at WP:ORG. Not every registered non-profit group meets these criteria. This is an international encyclopedia and cannot have articles about everything in the world, only about those subjects that have already been determined to be "notable" by significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: With all due respect, there is nothing spelled out clearly in significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. What exactly does significant mean? 2 references? 10 references? 50 references? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG for a clearer explanation. "Significant" refers to the TYPE of coverage; it means coverage in some depth (not a passing mention) specifically about the subject (not about peripheral subjects such as the people involved with it). The NUMBER of references is addressed by the requirement for "multiple" sources with significant coverage. "Multiple" is not specifically defined but means two at a minimum. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN I think most people are aware of the sense of what is written in WP:GNG, but it still doesn't allow any sort of objectivity. The language is woolly. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" - that's open to a whole range of interpretations. "sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability" ... now what is that? I don't come by AfD that much for exactly this sort of reason, there is simply no agreed standard as to which sources are reliable, and how much coverage things need to receive in them. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines can never be that specific, the world is too varied it's impossible to write general guidelines that cover all cases. So they are intentionally somewhat soft on specifics. Simply, something is notable if it has significant coverage, and significant means there is enough to be notable! It's our opinion and consensus that counts. Oh, and as a "guideline" it can be ignored entirely, if we want. Wikipedia is a consensus-based encyclopedia and consensus always has more weight than the guidelines, indeed more weight than anything. -- GreenC 13:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the statement Oh, and as a "guideline" it can be ignored entirely, if we want. because it seem to overlook that important fact that guidelines, like policies, are established through consensus and are not opinion pieces like essays. Guidelines represent what the community at large has determined to be best practices that each editor should try and follow. Sure there are occasional exceptions, but "don't want to" is not one in my opinion. WP:CONLIMITED tells us that a "local consensus" (i.e., "a consensus achieved by a limited group of editors at a one place or time") does not take precedence over a "community consensus". Furthermore, WP:CONSENSUS says that consensus "involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." The WP:GNG, WP:ORG and other notability guidelines have been determined through consensus and are widely accepted by the community as a whole. For sure, they may be changed over time, but this is something best achieved through proper discussion at their talk pages and not by simply ignoring them here because it helps us save this particular article. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the Policy on Guidelines states, "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I would read that not as we can blow them off whenever, but rather as—if in the judgement of the editors and admins considering a specific case—that case is held to be an "exception", then it that can override the general guideline. I would argue that the formal discussion and consensus reaching of an AFD would constitute a case of such a judgement being made. Carl Henderson (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are getting closer to a "keep". The Variety article does provide some significant coverage about the organization from an independent reliable source. If we can find a second such article, the subject wlil meet WP:GNG, since the guideline requires coverage by "multiple" independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would really, really, really like to keep this article, in principle. But where is the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources? The Variety piece says it is "a nonprofit organization for female helmers" and that isn't even a complete sentence, let alone significant coverage. I call it a passing mention. Am I missing something? So, if someone can come up with actual significant coverage in reliable, indepdndent sources, I will be delighted to recommend keeping the article. But it is not honest to keep an article just because we find the subject of the article appealing in the abstract, in the lack of solid evidence of notabity. Just furnish the evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Delete I tend to agree with Cullen328's comment above about Friend's Variety article. The mentioning of the AWD seems to be passing in nature and doesn't imply what it is supposed to be actually supporting in the article. I don't think it can be used to establish notability per WP:ORG. I also think the sentence "The AWD has also partnered with organizations such as Sundance Institute[4] and the Fox Global Directors Initiative[5] towards achieving the group's aims." is a bit problematic. The Fox source only lists the AWD as one of a number of organizations selected to be "nominators", while the Sundance source only lists the AWD as one of a number of "Allied" organizations. The text's use of "partnered" implies a much stronger, deeper connection in my opinion than being "one of a number of" (i.e., inclusion in a list of similar organizations) that doesn't help establish notability per WP:ORGDEPTH. Just for reference, there's also a quote that a director named Barcos gave to Variety that is uncited and a cite to an Elle article for director Jen McGowan that fails verification which are also problematic. Even though these are not connected to notability, they should be fixed. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I rewrote the "AWD has also partnered with..." sentence to be more precise and accurate based your suggestion on the talk page. I think you are correct about the phrasing. I'm a marketing communications person by trade and that mode of writing sometimes infects my other work. Thank you for the better phrasing. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've change my !vote from "Comment" to "Delete". I've just taken a look at the Facebook page for "Alliance of Women Directors" and I now have some serious concerns that this article may have been created by somebody with a conflict of interest. The following was posted on that FB page by a Jen McGowan onm March 17 at 18:25: "I just created a wiki page for AWD and need your help updating it. If you are or you know anyone that is a wiki editor please contribute to the page so it stays live. (Wiki will take it down if it doesn't have links and activity.) I hope you dig it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Women_Directors". If this is the same Jen McGowan who is one of the directors listed as a notable member of the AWD, then that would seem contrary to the spirit of WP:COS. This leads me to believe that, although the creator's intentions may have been good, the article was primarily created for promotional reasons. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In this context, it's fair to point out that the editor to whom you allude but do not name can be readily identified from the AWD revision history as User:Jjenred5. Not only did that editor create Wikipedia's Alliance of Women Directors organizational page, she also edited it 20 times this month and posted three unsigned comments on this AfD. Moreover, the same editor has made 22 edits to Wikipedia's Jen McGowan biographical page. I respectfully ask that User:Jjenred5 clarify this for us. It may be mere coincidence that her Wikipedia Username is suggestive of Jen McGowan, in which case we can disregard any appearance of conflict of interest based on circumstantial evidence. WikiCVU (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know Jen McGowan or Jjenred5, but there is reason to think they are the same person. According to the Wikipedia article on Jennifer (given name), Jennifer was one of the 100 most popular women's names in the US from 1956 to 2009, and was one of the top 10 most popular women's names from 1966 to 1992. It was the most popular name for women's names from 1970 to 1984. In other words, there are a whole lot of "Jennifers" out there. Having the string "jen" in one's Wikipedia user name is meaningless insofar as identifying the real life identity of an editor. In the absence of any other information, I think WP:AGF should apply here, as well as the general (and well-founded) reticence on Wikipedia about speculations on editor's real life identity. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am an idiot. I did not read Marchjuly's original comment above. Ignore my comment immediately preceding this one. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do believe the article is salvageable and that Alliance of Women Directors does meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The current article has been substantially expanded, referenced, and re-written by myself and other editors from the original. I'm going to continue to seek out sources and try to improve it. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the editor who started this discussion, I'd like to make a few points. I apologise to the regulars for going a little off-topic and long winded, but I'd like to reassure some of the visitors that I have sympathy for their viewpoints, some of which I agree with myself.

If I want to find people who don't like Wikipedia and strongly criticise it, I need look no further than my partner, my colleagues at work, and some of my best friends. For the record, my other half can be considered a "Women Director" having produced a children's television series and made majority decisions of what to film and where. There are Wikipedia editors who I personally consider to be complete and total jerks and cause great harm to the project through groupthink and systemic bias, but nobody cares about me whining about other Wikipedia editors so I'll name no names - AFAIK, none have participated in this debate so far.
People start AfD debates for a variety of reasons, some good, some bad - but when I start a debate, all I usually mean is "I've tried to improve this article and can't see a way of doing it, I'm stuck, is it worth proceeding?" Indeed, looking at the article history I can see a proposal to speedy delete the article (ie: wipe it out with no debate at all) [65] which even I strongly objected to, and I attempted to improve things by adding a citation to Elle magazine ([66]) A "keep" result means "yes it is", a "delete" result means "no, we're better off leaving it for now". It's unfortunate that the process is accompanied with big scary messages, but that is the nature of the beast, sadly.
It's somewhat perverse, but if the debate closes as "keep" it will result in a far better article than if no deletion discussion occurred. I am pleased that Jjenred5 is participating in the debate and making good faith suggestions to improve the article - and these should be encouraged. Now, I'm not some Wiki-ogre who likes deleting things - in fact it drives me up the wall ( see here) and I'm usually frustrated I can't improve an article.

So what information am I looking for (and would make me change my mind and switch to !voting "keep" - which I have done in the past)? Well, ideally I'd like what I call (for some bizarre reason) a "money source" - an in-depth news article, preferably from a broadsheet newspaper such as the New York Times or LA Times, or maybe one of the major film magazines sold nationally (sorry, don't know what those are in the US, but the British equivalent would be Empire). Basically, something that allows me to write a full and in-depth article directly about the topic, its history and its purpose. (edit : I see upthread that the Variety source has already gone some way towards this)

I can't get that from a magazine piece saying "so and so, who is a member of the Alliance of Women Directors, said..." - there's no information there to be able to write about the company. Have a look at Ika Hügel-Marshall (a good read even if I do say so myself), our "money source" there was an 5-6 page in-depth analysis of the article's subject archived on JSTOR, which was enough to write the guts of a basic article. Then when we got her autobiography (commercially published and edited by a third party, so can be considered reliable), we could expand the article even more, eventually obtaining good article status.

Anyway, I've rambled on for too long but hopefully that'll give you some ideas and reassure you that editor retention is a favourite subject of mine and nothing here is in any way personal. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the nine sources listed are specifically about the organization. Textbook examples of quote-mined passing mentions. Pax 09:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The sources adding quotes from various AWD officials (Eleonore Dailly, Maria Burton, Jacqui Barcos) specifically reference them by their role with the AWD, and in those articles the people mentioned are addressing the goals of the organization. I believe that that makes them more than a passing reference, and—as such—that those citations should go towards establishing notability. I do not believe that the WP:RS rules require a source to be solely focused on the topic of the WP article. I would ask that you reconsider your Delete recommendation.Carl Henderson (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true Carl, and those sources are fine for sourcing what was said, who said it and to whom it was said. They do not, however, help establish the notability of the AWD. Just as a person cannot inherit Wikipedia notability from another person, an organization cannot "inherit" its notability from its membership. WP:ORG says is that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." and WP:ORGDEPTH says "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." I am not questioning the reliability of the sources; I do question, however, whether they constitute "significant coverage" of the AFD according to WP:ORG. My opinion is that they don't. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's borderline regarding the formal notability rules, but there seems to be much more to gain by keeping this well-constructed article than would be achieved by deleting it. --LukeSurl^{t c} 18:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm giving things another go and trying to pull whatever sources I can find, but things are not looking promising. Take this extract from The Quest for Conscience and the Birth of the Mind, a psychology book by Annie Reiner. Great - reliable source, notable author - perfect for this article. Unfortunately, the prose I'd use for a citation shows an obvious pitfall - "... reminded him of a panel discussion he had heard recently by an alliance of women in film discussion why there were so few women directors." It doesn't even mention the organisation's name! And this Variety source merely namechecks the alliance amongst five other groups! That reinforces my view that the topic of women directors (or rather a lack of them) might be notable, but the AWD, as far as reliable sources are concerned, is not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep Most of the information about AWD is from their website, not reliable secondary sources. I like the idea of this article and have actively looked for reliable sources referencing it. On the majority of pages, AWD is mentioned only once in passing, usually tagging it on to a member's list of accomplishments. The "History" section of this article is dismal, because it appears that apart from AWD having famous members and a website, it has done almost nothing that has been documented by secondary sources. Mere existence is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. Maybe in a few years, this article will be appropriate, but not as it stands now. Also, it does seem to me that the creator and the majority of the editors have a conflict of interest in keeping the article up, not for encyclopedic purposes. -Iamozy (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of editors working on the article (like myself) who have collectively made the majority of recent edits who don't have any Conflict of Interest. I'd never heard of the AWD before I saw the question in the Teahouse earlier this week. Carl Henderson (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iamozy, saying "the majority of the editors have a conflict of interest in keeping the article up" is a cheap shot. Only the article's creator has been the subject of such speculation. Everyone else who's edited Alliance of Women Directors has demonstrated nothing but good faith. WikiCVU (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right @Carl Henderson: @WikiCVU:, I wrote that without looking into it thoroughly. I did not mean to dismiss the work you and other editors have done to improve the quality of this article. That was my mistake. -Iamozy (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my response to keep since the additions of more sources. A few more may be needed, but I think it has a better standing than before. -Iamozy (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, thank you to those who have helped get this page in compliance. I am new to this and am definitely learning a ton. Not that this matters to the page but I think some of you would like to know that overall this has been a positive experience and I plan to continue editing and will hopefully improve, the only downside has been the trolling that I and other women have experienced on twitter over this issue. Seems pretty silly but whatevs, not really concerned about it but thought you should know it's been happening. Regarding the article, I've received considerable support about this page over the past few days and I expect non-AWD member wiki editors to contribute to continuer improving the page. Obviously I will not touch it any more. I didn't know I could't as a member but I do now.Jjenred5 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the improvements continue. Full disclosure: I was asked offsite to have a look at the article and some of the concerns listed herein are quite valid, specifically wrt what the cited sources say—and what they don't say. I would also note that COI is not in and of itself a disqualifier; the intent is (or is not). All in all, the article seems to be shaping up and—again, presuming said good-faith effort continues—deletion at this point strikes me as incorrect. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why were five comments on this page just deleted? That is unusual to say the least. Carl Henderson (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were policy issues aimed toward some editors. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to switch to moral keep as Carl's work on the article, plus the extraordinary bad PR the WMF would get from deleting this (when it is trying to address systemic bias and more women contributors) means that I think we should keep it. In the interests of full disclosure, my partner has been posting on the AWD's twitter feed giving advice about how to document the group in the press, so that their notability is far easier to verify in future. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I'd just like to point out that I'm far from the only editor to have worked on improving the article. Theroadislong, Marchjuly, JohnValeron, J Lynn Reed 2015, LukeSurl, Morganfaust, and MelanieN have all made multiple edits to the AWD article.

My understanding of Wikipedia is that its purpose is not to right great wrongs. Keeping articles for moral reasons seems to imply that articles may also be deleted for moral reasons, i.e., a "moral delete". Wikipedia editors are a varied lot. I not sure if there is one common morality that we all share. If moral arguments are recognized in this AfD, then they should also be recognized in other AfDs. I personally think it's best to stick to whether the AWD currently satisfies relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, i.e., WP:ORG and WP:GNG, and not whether it may some day satisfy these policies and guidelines. We can debate whether an article should be kept/deleted based upon these policy, but how do we debate whether an article should be kept/deleted based upon morality. Such an attempt to do so would seem to imply that one side is going to end up being seen as "immoral". I'm not sure if we want to take this discussion in that direction. One possible solution to this whole thing may be to userfy or incubate the article in the spirit of WP:RAPID. The basic premise seems to be to re-add the article to an editor's userspace or the draft namespace where it can continue to be worked on and improved until it is ready to be re-added to the mainspace. This is just a suggestion as possible alternative to outright deletion. FWIW, even if the article survives this AfD and is kept, there's no guarantee that it will not be nominated for deletion again by another editor sometime down the road for similar reasons. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Many of the sources that cover the subject are just passing mentions and quotes from members of the organization, but there are quite a few of them. Although the quantity of sources is enough, almost all of them are only passing mentions and quotes from members of the organization, and thus, fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Esquivalience ^t 01:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I wavered on this one. Either way it would be a "weak" !vote. I think the volume of minimal-to-meh sources in high-profile publications, which are so ready to hand, suggests there's likely something more .... but I can't find it. Weak keep is based on this sense combined with the clear intentions of several editors to continue working on the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NONPROFIT (or WP:ORG). Has national scope and is mentioned in national sources, the two criteria. -- GreenC 13:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll agree that the AWD is national (perhaps even international) in scope, but for the sake of clarification, the second criterion listed in "WP:NONPROFIT" is "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[1] reliable sources that are independent of the organization." which is not quite exactly the same as simply being "mentioned in national sources". ~~As for "WP:ORG",~~ WP:ORG#Primary criteria says the following: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Moreover, WP:ORGDEPTH ~~in "WP:ORG"~~ considers coverage such as "inclusion in lists of similar organizations", "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization", etc. to be trivial. I don't think any of us disagree that certain members of the AWD are notable and influential (women) directors, or that the AWD is trying to good things; However, WP:INHERITORG ~~(also in "WP:ORG")~~ says that "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable." - Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC) -(Post edited to strike redundant mentions of "WP:ORG") 22:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm slightly shocked and having trouble understanding some of these keep !votes. The bottom line is this: Does the organization meet our inclusion guidelines? The answer as far as I can see is no. Not yet at least. There is no such thing as a "moral keep" or whatever that was. It seems we're being bullied by these people to keep the article because OMG gender issues, and that is going to set a really bad precedent. Because the next one is going to be an African NGO, and so OMG race issues, and then a charity that promotes children's health and so OMG think of the children. And ad nauseam until we're flooded with articles about non-notable organizations that we're too afraid to delete because OMG something. Wikipedia is not here to promote causes or advertise organizations - it is here to document the notability of the subjects it covers. If the organization was truly notable, someone other than a member with a conflict of interest would have created it by now. But that's not the case, because it is not notable (although obviously some of the members are). And this AFD wouldn't even have started. But here we are. Delete for now, wait until someone else creates it once there is sufficient secondary coverage of the org's work. And truly, shame on the COI editor for bringing gender into this whole thing, or for suggesting your barely notable group deserves a separate set of standards because OMG women. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request I'd like to request that the article be copied to my userspace if the AFD passes and Alliance of Women Directors ends up being removed from Wikipedia mainspace. I can keep an eye out for any new sources that may or may not pop up demonstrating notability, add them if useful, and then send the article back out via the AFC process. Thanks. Carl Henderson (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to have the article's talk page copied over to my userspace as well, should the AFD pass. Carl Henderson (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2015 (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. Michig (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fireplane

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

Zackmann08 (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep. Unable to locate any sources that demonstrate notability. APerson (talk!) 16:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to "weak keep", per the information and source provided by Margin1522. APerson (talk!) 18:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to locate any sources that show it even exists.... --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't double !vote. As nominator your support for deletion is generally assumed. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not double voting... Just voicing my rational for nominating. --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep It's a thing, if you're interested in Sun you're probably interested in it. IEEE Micro considered it worth writing about (as has always been linked from this article, despite the "There are no sources" claims.) http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=988688 Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources that demonstrate that it's a thing, beyond two articles written by the same guy and one promotional spec sheet by the company that created the device? APerson (talk!) 13:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as @Andy Dingley: said, it's a thing, it's been recognized IEEE and ACM. Certainly notable. Also, how does the inclusion of this, even short, harm Wikipedia in any way? It's part of computer history, even if it was not long-lived. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzheado, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the article's "been recognized" by the IEEE and ACM, or how that establishes notability. Also, it may be HARMLESS, but what does that prove? APerson (talk!) 13:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@APerson: - The technical specs have been published with IEEE and ACM, which is certainly significant as they are the main professional and academic societies in computer science and engineering. It puzzles me why that's not obvious -- this is an implemented technology by Sun Microsystems in their UltraSPARC chips which is the basis of their internal interconnect. It is in their manuals. Engineers write (or wrote) to this spec. It is an implemented technology by one of the top producers of server hardware so I'm rather perplexed this has to be discussed. What this "proves" is that Wikipedia is indeed a record of computing history, and part of all history. It's also obvious Zackmann08 has nominated this because of his/her bias in favor of firefighting topics as seen on the user page and the recent history of user contributions. I can only guess, but perhaps this nomination is a way to clear the space for a link related to aerial firefighting. I consider this a misleading nomination by not noting that motive and not being transparent in the rationale. Why not make a disambiguation page and keep content in Wikipedia instead of destroying it, if that was the intent? I'm not immovable -- I'm simply asking for users to be transparent and cooperative. Ping: @Andy Dingley: -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzheado, I guess I missed any bias by the nominator, but then again, ATTP. Is Sun really so notable that minor topics related to it automatically become notable? (note: that was a legitimate question, not a rhetorical one; I'm unsure of the answer.) APerson (talk!) 16:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you buy things on-line? If you did, and you started doing it around 2000, same as most people did, you were relying on Fireplane to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley, if there were a single source for that in the article or this discussion, I would accept that the device is notable. As it is, however, the article cites a load of papers talking about the device's architecture, not its apparently wide usage. APerson (talk!) 18:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I agree with @Fuzheado:. The ACM and IEEE don't publish tinkertoy devices or unimportant project's for obvious reasons. Their recognition does not come lightly. If the IEEE and ACM do not establish this articles notability let me be the first to put up nearly every other piece of technology the ACM or IEEE have helped define for deletion (note: That would most likely be near three quarters of Wikipedia's articles relating to computer hardware from what I see.) Andrdema (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andrdema, I can't see why the impact factors of the journals in which the articles' sources were published has such a strong impact on notability. The fact remains that very few people have written about, much less heard about, this device. Also, articles ought to stand on their own merits. APerson (talk!) 18:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The example arguments given in WP:AON consist only of an arbitrary "if we delete X we have to delete Y", whereas Andrdema begins by explaining why the factors in question establish notability, and only then goes on to use an AON argument. The only flaw I can see in the keep arguments presented here is that many of the claims to notability haven't been supported by direct links to sources, but I'm not sure how much that matters in this case ("not sure" as in "I have no idea", not "I'm doubtful"). ekips39 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ekips39: As you wished two articles of note that establish this article as notable are available Here and Here 159.18.103.65 (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@APerson: two articles of note that establish this article as notable are available Here and Here also there was a lot of information about the Fireplane itself inside of High Performance Computing articles and conference records. Please respect that you do not speak for many people and can only really speak for yourself. Just because you have not heard of it does not mean others have not. To point back to articles ought to stand on their own merits if you read it it states that it could simply be that other articles have not been held to the same standards as of yet. This is not true many Technology and Engineering articles notability have been judged on this principle alone. To ignore this now would mean to have to go back to all the previous articles and flag them for deletion accordingly. 159.18.103.65 (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
159, I can't see either of the articles; can you give me their titles/authors so I can try and find them elsewhere? APerson (talk!) 14:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I don't think it was all that significant. It was a state-of-the-art architecture for a couple of years after 2001. The Charlesworth IEEE paper gets 80 cites on GS, so it was notable to system architects around that time. ~~Mentioned~~ Described in this book. It would be nice if the article could tell us how long it was used. Was it superceded by something else, or are the same principles still in use? – Margin1522 (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In answer to "how long it was used", it was the interconnect plane for Sun's mid-range and high-end systems, including the Sun Fire 15K and E25K, which were sold until 2009.

Th replacement product line, the M-Series systems, were introduced in 2007. So, this was Sun's flagship interconnect architecture for about six years, and was part of an active product line for about eight years.--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - contrary to the nominator's rationale, there are sources that show that the subject does exist; furthermore, the subject meets the notability requirements. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shezzy Brown

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Can't find any notability. Wgolf (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant promoting. –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say I've nominated all his images for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shezzy Brown- Believe.jpg. –Davey2010^Talk 18:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't locate sources to meet notability requirements of the WP:GNG but maybe it's WP:TOOSOON. Hope he'll be back in Wikipedia someday.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2015 (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. Michig (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herbie Sherman

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

Does not appear to meet the general notability criterion or any of the more specialized criteria such as WP:BIO. Looking at the username, this appears to be an autobiography. The claims of importance are all problematic. He's supposed to be a singer-songwriter but there's no indication that he has ever released or even recorded so much as a single. It's claimed that he was on a Survivor-like reality TV series (and made an early exit) but his name does not appear in the article Treasure Island (show) and a search for "Herb Sherman + Treasure Island" comes up empty. He claims that he's part of a collective of Gospel musicians but there's no sign that this collective is itself notable. Finally, Sherman has fought in mixed martial arts but in a semi-professional promotion that is not notable. Pichpich (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time we rid wikipedia of autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, excellent nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2015 (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) –Davey2010^Talk 06:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skull & Crossbones

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

Tagged for sources since 2012, none forthcoming. Fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. 1980s video games often are more thoroughly sources in print media than in content currently searchable online. The reliability of the International Arcade Museum's Killer List of Video Games is debatable, but this has an entry there. This German-language book mentions it at least briefly, as does this Russian book about video game sound effects. I'm not really qualified to evaluate either work. Beyond that, additional coverage in Coin Slot Magazine (for the arcade version) and any of several periodicals covering NES gaming seems plausible. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, KLOV is a reliable source per WP:VG/S. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I fixed the mobygames link to the page, added the arcade cabinet manual (on archive.org), and I was able to find a few sources of varying quality online if someone would like to put it into the page: Reviews: [67][68] [69] [70] Other stuff: [71] ― Padenton|✉ 01:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source reliability check—Source 1, Atari Times, is patently unreliable, user-submitted. Source 2, The Video Game Critic, is self-published and has been deemed unreliable. Source 3, Honestgamers, is similarly part-time and has no fact-checking editorial policy. Source 4 is an official listing for a print magazine, so okay. And Source 5, a Gamasutra feature, is of course okay, though the subject only has a blurb. czar ⨹ 04:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep-I actually use to own a copy I found but since it didn't work...anyway it is notable even if obscure. Wgolf (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harder to find sources for games of this age, but there are plenty of reviews (via Amiga mag rack) for the C64/Amiga ports of the game. More than enough there in those print sources to suffice for the general notability guideline and to build suitable gameplay and reception sections. czar ⨹ 04:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Ponyo. –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jawani Phir Nahi Aani

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

Contested prod of a unotable unreleased film Wgolf (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NFILM ― Padenton|✉ 00:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
incubate its too soon, only routine promotional pips. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOOSOON. –Davey2010^Talk 06:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serpentine shape

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

The Lead section is a dictionary definition. The Geometry section is better described by Serpentine curve. 'In Architecture' and 'In Topography and Geoecology' sections - in the main, contain blocks of text that happen to include the adjective 'serpentine' HolsworthyDave 02:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – Duplicates various articles. Merge the mathematical shape to Serpentine curve. Merge the University of Virginia walls to Crinkle crankle wall. Merge the London lake to Serpentine (lake). Merge the church to San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane. The rest seems to be dictionary examples. I guess there is some value in having a title on the shape itself, but the article duplicates too much text. We have a disamb page on Serpentine. The title could be redirected to Serpentine curve? Then we could keep it in the category Geometric shapes (if we keep redirects in categories). – Margin1522 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit inclined to keep this article. I've put a hatnote at the top linking to Serpentine, the disambiguation page, and eliminated the sentence about the mineral in the introduction. I've also moved the terse "Geometry" section to the end, since this article is primarily about designed physical objects in architecture and landscape architecture. The sense in which the term is used in geometry is related to the topic of this article, but is not the same thing. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has good references, and copyediting may fix other problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs)
Keep. It's a bit of a dog's breakfast at the moment, and I really don't like it, but WP:CONCEPTDAB certainly allows for an article with this title. Done well, it could be really good. There is certainly a clear topic here, in terms of a distinct shape. All the problems can be fixed by normal editing. -- 120.17.2.182 (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's well on the way to looking good now. -- 120.17.33.20 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not presented in the style of a dictionary and WP:CONCEPTDAB provides an excellent justification. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Wrong venue - This isn't the place to discuss WP:merges - Those take place thataway → (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ORY

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

There is an 'ory' page, and it has some of the names. Suggest merge. Smarkflea (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom ― Padenton|✉ 00:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (1) In fact ORY (all caps, 2006) is older than Ory (normal caps, 2014). (2) Technically nom "suggest merge" and not deletion makes this in a wrong place to discuss (start a merger discussion per WP:MERGE). (3) Personally I see we can move Ory (normal caps) → Ory (surname) because that's all the current article stores, and then ORY → Ory as the main dab. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as deletion is not being suggested and merges or moves should be carried out boldly ASAP. Siuenti (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2015 (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.

[Krug-1] Krug, Steve (2005-08-18). Don't Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability (Second ed.). New Riders. ISBN 978-0321344755.

[2] Cited for example by Armin Höland, Jürgen Daviter, Volkmar Gessner, Zentrum für Europäische Rechtspolitik, Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (ed.): Forschungs- und Aktionsprogramm zur Entwicklung des Arbeitsmarktes. Rechtliche, steuerliche, soziale und administrative Hindernisse für die Entwicklung örtlicher Beschäftigungsinitiativen, vol. II: Fortführung von Krisenunternehmen durch die Belegschaften, Luxemburg 1986, p. 34 (online, pdf).

[3] Review by Jan Herrmann for Cetacea.de. Wale, Delfine und Menschen.

[1]

[1]

[2]