Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TreyGeek (talk | contribs) at 16:23, 14 June 2013 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cage Rage 23. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 13 June 15 June >

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. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cage Rage 23

Cage Rage 23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contents fail WP:SPORTSEVENT in that they lack well-sourced prose discussing the event and do not assert the event's notability. The events also appear to fail WP:GNG as coverage of the events are WP:ROUTINE fight announcements and results. TreyGeek (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Cage Rage 24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cage Rage 25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cage Rage 26 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cage Rage 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cage Rage 28 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Huebner

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

WP:BLP1E. Also, as it is the article is a horrid violation of WP:BLPREMOVE. Shii (tock) 12:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • My complaint about the article's content has been resolved by another editor. Thanks! I still doubt his notability, though. Shii (tock) 13:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the BLP issues have been resolved. As for notability, it's probably skirting the edges of WP:PROF, but I feel like the one paper he is known for was high-profile enough, in both the press and the academic literature, to warrant keeping the article. (The very fact that it attracted BLP violations, though unfortunate, also supports this). -Kieran (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 12:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 12:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the subject has received mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, but IMHO what has really received significant coverage is the paper the subject wrote. Additionally, the subject if taken as an event (the publishing of the paper) it has received significant coverage well after its publication. My question regarding this AfD, has the subject of this AfD received significant coverage outside of the publication of the paper, A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation? Have other papers written by the subject of this AfD received significant coverage?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 17:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think one paper with only 38 citations in Google scholar is enough to hang a case for WP:PROF on. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain Basically, I agree with DavidE. about his individual notability, but the question is whether people will come across this work enough to look for an article here--I'd be much more satisfied if we could merge or incorporate the content somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, as noted by David Eppstein above; and as for GNG, his only notable paper was covered in a couple of mainstream sources at the time ((US News and World Report, New Scientist) but does not seem to have made much of an enduring mark. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure yet. I'm not seeing a real biography here. However, I am seeing that the paper he wrote was published in a peer reviewed publication, and has received some press. It probably received more press back in 2005 and maybe 2006 because it was discussed in U.S. News and World Report. Therefore, I think the best thing to do is to search general topic databases for related press articles, such as the databases found in a college or public library like Academic OneFile, Expanded Academic, and General OneFile. So, what I am saying is, I recommend an article based on the paper. I think that might be notable as compared to the author's biography. Biographical facts pertaining to the author could be mentioned in the article, if there are any more. Also, I think this is an interesting topic. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put the same article in a different context that would probably survive notability. It is currently in my sandbox here, but can be moved to the mainspace at anytime. Just let me know what the consensus is. Or we can have the original author copy and post the sand box article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Steve Quinn: Your article fails to distinguish between *rate of change* of technology and *level* of technology; it treats them as the same thing. And I'd like to see a little wider variety of sources rather than just Huebner's work, a couple newspaper stories from immediately after it was published, and one followup research paper. Despite these flaws it is much better than the present article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - David Eppstein, thanks for the feedback. I will look into distinguishing "rate of change" of technology and "level" of technology. Also, I will search for a wider supply of sources according to your description. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, as noted by David Eppstein aboveKabirat (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in relaible independent independent sources. Transitory coverage in the popular press does little to establish notability. No evidence that the subject meets any of out notability requirements, particularly WP:PROF. No evdience of significant and lasting impact in the scholarly community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (change to delete) per Dominus Vobisdu. Also, this subject is lacking in sources that show notability per WP:PROF. The demonstrated coverage in the small amount of press that are used to source the article do not appear to substantially cover the subject. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date Sanemoto

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

See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. A quick search of Google books shows no support. The stub article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Enkyo2 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Enkyo2 18:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Enkyo2 18:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Enkyo2 22:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As context, does it make sense to compare Amakasu Kagetsugu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amakasu clan? --Enkyo2 12:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Date Sanemoto (伊達実元) wasn't fictional. His father's attempt to make him heir of the Uesugi by having Uesugi Sadazane adopt him led to the Tenbun War (天文の乱). He was also the father of Date Shigezane, who is notable. I don't know if that qualifies Sanemoto himself as notable, though. Cckerberos (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is clearly quite a tough call, especially given how polarized the debate is. I'm therefore going to make a few comments on my close. When an editor alleges that an article has no reliable sources to establish notability, the onus is then on those wishing to keep the article to provide the discussion with sources. Doncram makes some interesting arguments to support keeping the article, which suggest that there must be secondary sources available offline due to it being on the Los Angeles Historic-Cultural monuments list. However, he has not provided any sources. AfD is not about speculation - We must resort to firm evidence in these discussions. As there has been no evidence provided, I must give these comments less weight. alf laylah wa laylah makes an important suggestion that a designation as a LAHC monument confers notability - If others had agreed with this, I would have closed this AfD as keep. However, the numerous users wishing to delete the article suggest that this does not automatically confer notability, and the article must pass the general notability guideline in order for the article to remain. I am persuaded by this point, and this is something that those wishing to keep the article have failed to rebut. As such, I conclude that the consensus is to delete the article. This is without prejudice to anyone putting a redirect in place to List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in the Wilshire and Westlake areas or List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in South Los Angeles, whichever it is decided is the correct list. Further, should anyone wish to merge the content, I am happy to userfy the article in order for histories to be merged. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craftsman Mansion

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

Not notable enough for a standalone article. The property is designated historic by the city, but not by the National Register of Historic Places which would make it automatically notable. The only reference provided is generic and not specific to this property. Everything in this article is already duplicated in the article Victoria Park, Los Angeles. I considered proposing a redirect to that article, but IMO the name "Craftsman Mansion" is too generic to use as a redirect. MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been argued in recent deletion discussions that neighborhoods of Los Angeles, being themselves bigger than many small countries, are inherently notable. Could not a conclusion be drawn, analogously, that, since a listing on a national historical registry confers automatic notability, so too does listing as historic by a city that is bigger by population than very close to half of the world's countries?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in South Los Angeles. There is nothing here that could not be easily mentioned in the existing list (i.e. "built in 1912"). Generally with Wikipedia articles they should only be created if there is something meaningful that can be said about the subject. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corrected target name, based on comments below. Though if a building has such a generic name no-one is exactly sure where it is, it's hardly encouraging on the notability front! Sionk (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is listed on a significant register of historic places, the Los Angeles Historic-Cultural monuments list. Whether or not there is already a lot of info about it in the article, there will exist substantial off-line documentation about it, and local historians/librarians/others may add to it if it is an article; it meets Wikipedia criteria for notability. Tag it as "stub" calling for further development. Also, if "Craftsman Mansion" seems too generic, suggest a different name such as Craftsman Mansion (Victoria, Park) in a wp:RM at the article's Talk page. --doncram 16:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The process of designation as a Historical-Cultural monument is quite rigorous. It is described here. As you can see, it requires detailed scrutiny and documentation by the staff of the Office of Historic Resources. Further information on the process is described in a series of PDFs published by the Los Angeles Conservancy and to be found here. This process will have generated a mass of documentation in order for the designation to have been approved, that material will have been scrutinized by employees of the Office of Historic Resources and thus will qualify as a secondary source. Furthermore, because it's available to the public (I don't know the details of this yet, but I will find out tomorrow; worst case scenario involves the Freedom of Information Act, but I can't imagine that would be necessary) it has been published. (Parenthetical note: I have seen the argument here and there on Wikipedia that publication does *not* consist of one copy of the material being deposited in an archive and made available to the public. This is wrong. It does. Ask your lawyer if you can defame someone by depositing one copy in a public library if you don't believe me). Thus any property on the list of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural monuments is de facto notable. I hope to write a Wikipedia essay about this soon and propose it as a notability guideline. However, even in the absence of a guideline I think that it is clear that a designation as a LAHC monument confers sufficient notability for the retention of this article. (Note: The name of the article is abysmal, however. I suggest a move to the actual address of the property rather than this generic name, and will carry it out should the article be kept). Also, @Sionk: there may be nothing available on the internet about this property, but User:doncram is correct that verifiability does not require on-line documentation. TL;DR: Per Doncram.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the application is not available online? The application for the Holmes-Shannon house is.[1] However, even if you find the documentation, it remains my opinion that the only historic listings that convey automatic notability are those on the National Register. If you open "automatic notability" to states and large cities, you are asking for a deluge of non-encyclopedic articles about minimally notable properties. As for notability, while I grant that such an application is "published" by a "reliable source", it takes multiple such sources to establish notability. If no newspaper or magazine or historical writer took note of the designation - if there is no source other than the approved application - it doesn't meet the notability criteria IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to write a notability essay about states and large cities, just about Los Angeles! Then we really only have to worry about New York, and they can take care of their own darn notability criteria. Also, I'm not just thinking about the application itself, but the documentation that must be generated during the review process. Anyway, I'm going to call the city planning office tomorrow when they open and find out where they keep all the paperwork. I'll let you know what happens.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it simply the case this is a house of some age (for Los Angeles) with original features which has been put on a list? To make the claim that there is "substantial off-line documentation" would be shot down in most other AfD's, unless there was some indication of proof. The fact is all we know is it was built in 1912 and its on a list. The list has its own article already. When the "mass" of documentation comes to light, the article can be easily recreated. Sionk (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the links I provided that outline the approval process? They support the claim that there is substantial off-line documentation. Did you read the link MelanieN provided for the application for the house next door to this one? That's substantial off-line documentation. Like in so many AfDs, ease of access of documentation is being conflated with verifiability.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has generally been established that only national registers of historic buildings confer an intimation of automatic notability (and even then not always). Local registers do not. The size of Los Angeles is utterly irrelevant. The fact it is larger than many countries is a complete straw man, as the United States lists many, many more buildings on its national register than do those smaller countries (and those smaller countries, in any case, in many cases have a much longer built heritage history than does the United States and therefore a far larger ratio of historic buildings proportionate to their area; just because an area is larger does not necessarily mean it has more buildings of historical interest). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below; there is no "general establishment" that way, at all. --doncram 12:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "red herring" rather than "straw man"? In any case, this is not a matter of physical size, it's a matter of population and of length of history. Los Angeles has a longer built history than many of those countries as well.(Unsigned comment by alf laylah wa laylah)
Sorry, but although I am a proud Californian myself I have to refute that statement. Here in California, 100 years old is considered really old, but that is not the case on (say) the East Coast, where a hundred-year-old house is just another house. And in most countries of Europe, 100 years old would be considered relatively new; everyday properties there are often hundreds of years old; some historic structures may be a thousand years old or more. I can fully understand why someone from England might dismiss a hundred-year-old residence, and many other properties considered "historic" by Los Angeles, as of trivial significance. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of pride. There are 250 year old buildings in Los Angeles. Are there 250 year old buildings in the Republic of Tonga, or Fiji, or many other countries on the list smaller by population than Los Angeles? My remark was made in response to the claim that "those smaller countries, in any case, in many cases have a much longer built heritage history than does the United States", which is simply not true.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are 250 year old buildings in Los Angeles. That does not appear to be true. The city was founded only 232 years ago. According to the LA Times,[2] the oldest building in LA may be a 220-year-old portion of the Sanchez Adobe in Baldwin Hills. Just for the record. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your rhetorical question about other countries: there are monuments on the Island of Tonga that are 800 years old, and there is an archeological site on Fiji that is at least 500 years old. No matter how you look at it, California is a johnny-come-lately with regard to historic properties. Again, just for the record. --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we're going archeological, we have La Brea Tarpits, site of the ceremonial interment of La Brea Woman...and 220 is about the same as 250, anyway!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several here have asserted that only national registers matter for Wikipedia. Since when? That is just not true, there is no such finding in Wikipedia. Ask, if you wish, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites, which I and others founded to cover local, national, international historic registers. There is absolutely no such finding.

And, redirecting this article to the List-article, which itself includes redlinks and bluelinks linking to individual listing topics, doesn't make sense. You don't complete out a list article by converting every redlink into a link back to the same list-article. --doncram 12:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not asserting that at all. What we're saying is that only listing on national registers provides a likelihood that a building will be found notable. I think you'll find that it has generally been found in AfDs that nationally listed monuments are valid for articles and locally listed monuments are not. We naturally consider all monuments on their merits and they may have articles even if they are not nationally listed, but this is frankly not a particularly good case for an exception. It's a fairly ordinary suburban house dating from 1912. It has neither age nor size nor history nor uniqueness to make it worthy of an article. The keep opinions seem to be based merely on the fact that LA has listed it and not on its own merits. If information can be provided on why it's worthy of an article (other than the fact that it's been locally listed) then I may reconsider. Until then, it appears to be a pretty pedestrian early 20th century building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have access to the application for the status of the house? I ask because I'm sure you're aware that notability is not based solely on online sources and you assert with such authority the ordinariness of the house. If you have evidence of this, would you mind sharing it or saying where you got it so I can use it in the article.?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind sharing the information I'm sure you have that shows it isn't any more than a building listed for being a bit older than the average? Because I can't see any in the article. To put this into perspective, I've just returned from a trip to Munich to look at the historic architecture. Bavaria lists pretty much any building built before 1920 as an historic monument. On some streets that's almost every building. In no way are all or even most of these worthy of articles in their own right. I want to see evidence that Los Angeles doesn't have a similar policy, because I see none at the moment. Of course it's true that print sources are as valid as online sources, but there must be some evidence that it's of special value or interest to have an article about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not older than average. In fact it's the same age as all the other houses in that neighborhood and in adjacent neighborhoods as well. They built hundreds of thousands of houses in LA between 1900 and 1920 and hundreds of thousands of them are still standing and are not listed anywhere. What Bavaria does is of little concern. If you don't see the evidence that Los Angeles doesn't have a similar policy will you please look at the links I've provided that describe the vetting process for the list and also the example of the successful application that MelanieN has linked to somewhere on this page? The fact that this house passed the review process implies the existence of information comparable to that found in the other application. Your questions have really actually already been answered. Unfortunately that particular office of City Planning is not very responsive, so I haven't yet gotten a completed application form for this house or even found out where they're kept on file, but it's the same process as the other house went through. This neighborhood has hundreds of these houses, all built at the same time, mostly in craftsman style. Two of them are on the list. The list is not indiscriminate.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. We have conflicting information here. The property is in Victoria Park, Los Angeles, which is described as being in Mid-City, which is described as being in Central Los Angeles. This article in the LA Times seems to confirm that Victoria Park is part of Central LA. However, I also note that Victoria Park appears to be served by the West Adams Heritage Association, and that the West Adams article links to the South LA cultural monuments. According to the application for the Holmes Shannon House, Victoria Park is in the West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert community plan area, and the South Los Angeles planning commission, and the Mid City neighborhood council. The city's designations should probably be accepted, therefore the information at Mid-City and at Victoria Park is wrong. As I read it, Victoria Park is in West Adams, which is in Mid City, which is in South LA. (For those who are not from southern California and can't understand why this should be unclear: in the LA metropolitan area, neighborhoods and even cities run into each other with no obvious demarcation; it's just solid urbanscape for 60 miles in all directions.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We really should go with the city. See this document for proof that the city considers this house to be in the West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert area. I know why this probably intentional error was made, but as I have no reliable sources for it I'll keep it to myself. Anyway, it doesn't make sense to list historical properties outside of the districts that the city lists them in.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further confusion: the LA Times mapping project[3] lists West Adams and Mid-City as two different districts, with West Adams being in South LA and Mid-City in Central LA. And yet the city's designation says that this property is in both West Adams and Mid-City. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The immediate problem only has to do with which list of HCM's it should redirect to. Since there is no sense in which Victoria Park is in Wilshire-Westlake even though it is legitimately in Mid-City, it shouldn't redirect to that list. It's in Mid-City since it's north of the 10, which is the criterion being used by the mapping LA project and which is totally reasonable, but architecturally and historically Victoria Park is part of West Adams and other historically white ritzy little South LA neighborhoods, which is why the Historical commission lists it with those properties. Since we don't have a list of HCMs in Mid-City we should go with grouping this one as the city groups it, which is essentially South LA. If we had a list of HCMs in Mid-City we could send it there, but we don't. The real problem is that the Wikipedia lists of HCMs don't match the Historical commission's divisions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with whatever you think is correct in this case, and I agree it should be the city's designations. I would request you (since you have this a lot straighter in your head than I do) to fix the Victoria Park and Mid-City articles at some point. (And of course I still maintain that a Delete would be better than a Redirect to either the list or the Victoria Park article.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to think of what to do to fix them, but of course I still maintain that a Keep would be best here ;)— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relist rationale:I notified WikiProject Historic sites of this discussion, perhaps folks there can clarify some things.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There should be no auto-pass of GNG based on the city's listing of the property as significant. It's a simple question of whether this passes GNG under its own merits. Now checking... Carrite (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm seeing a lot of uses of the phrase "Craftsman Mansion" as a generic term for a type of house, not much and nothing counting to GNG for this particular house. Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources become available. We shouldn't create new special notability rules for Los Angeles or New York or London on the fly simply because they are big... Carrite (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nalini Netto

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

mid level kerala state civil service bureaucrat. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 12:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 10:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Basically two claims to fame: Chief Electoral Officer of a region of with about 34 million people. The closest analog I can find with a page is here. The actual holder of the office doesn't have their own page. The fact that she was one of several apparent victims of a harasser falls under WP:ONEEVENT at best. - Richfife (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis automatic rifle

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

Not assertion of notability other than "this thing existed at one point". No real content of this article and no liklihood it will ever have any. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [4].  Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

  • Keep A Google Books search shows significant coverage in books of the post World War I era. This was not an obscure prototype, as it appears the firearm went into production. We shouldn't delete stubs with useful content about notable topics. Instead, we expand them over time through normal editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
....And another passage noting the place of the Lewis AR in the history of armaments in WWI in David French's book Raising Churchill's Army (Oxford University Press). Carrite (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in Farrow's Dictionary of Military Terms. Carrite (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Test Studio

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

The current sources do not support notability. The blog is not a WP:RS while the others are too brief to be substantial. The WP:SPA who created the article doesn't help. This is also the second nomination since the first article was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telerik Test Studio. No new sources have been provided since that discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New sources added In.Che. (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamino

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

Fails WP:GNG. No out of universe notability. JJ98 (Talk) 02:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - there's obviously plenty of in universe notability - various books, cartoons, comics, etc - but I was also able find quite a few books that aren't part of the Star Wars storyline but instead provide analysis of the various scenes and settings used in the 6 "core" films. This, though DK and LucasArts obviously have a long standing relationship, this, this, this and this. Those are about the universe, rather than in universe, though I'll admit the line is often very thin. At the end of the day, the subject was the setting for a major scene in a notable film - the home planet of the title characters - and several episodes of a notable television series. There are going to be secondary sources that analyse its importance, its place in the films and various other things.
I suppose my other query would be about the nomination of this subject/article and not the several others that fall into the same category - Star Wars planets. Is there a particular reason this one fails our guidelines where the others don't? It's not so much an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as a query of consistency. Should this be bundled with nominations for each of the others? It would seem they would all suffer the same "problems" and be the subject of the same sort of coverage. Stalwart111 07:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this is promotional material produced in collaboration with LucasFilms, as you noted.
this only mentions Kamino once as part of plot recap.
this is an essay on cloning technology in Star Wars that only makes incidental mentions of Kamino as part of plot recap.
this only mentions Kamino 3 times as part of plot recap.
this could be interesting (can't be accessed on GBooks) but the copyright page that can be previewed on Amazon indicates it's officially-sanctioned promotional material.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, your assessment in each case is pretty close to accurate. Lots and lots of passing mentions and plot summaries and a little bit of analysis. Stalwart111 23:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFF is all about how we tackle consistency, so I'm afraid I'm unconvinced by that as an argument. If there are other Star Wars universe planets that fail to meet WP:N, then they should be deleted too. There's plenty of fan cruft on Wikipedia that could be pruned. Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, which is why I specifically didn't include it in my argument but queried the consistency aspect, instead, with the nominator. Stalwart111 09:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with no objection to an editorial merge into a List of Star Wars planets, while keeping the specifically notable planets like Tatooine as standalone articles. The material is mostly verifiable to primary sources, with a few other RS mentions, such that while GNG is possibly met, the better option would be to merge similarly-non-notable planets into a list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think a valid argument could be made for deletion, as this article only just borders on the realm of notability. However, I feel that it is only just passable – I would, however, like to see significant improvements to ensure this subject's notability in the future. — Richard BB 07:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Star Wars planets. A thorough search for sources did not yield anything more than trivial mentions of the planet as part of plot summary, a description that fits the sources proposed in this discussion.WP:GNG requires "significant coverage from independent sources", so I really can't see how this could even "possibly" pass GNG, and since these sources don't allow to write more that a "Summary-only descriptions of works" per WP:NOTPLOT I see no reason for this article to be kept. As for the other Star Wars planets, except maybe one or two, they probably aren't notable either.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems apt in this case. Its not about deleting content, but making sure that the articles have enough information to be useful. Even together as part of other Star Wars planets, this would not be amiss or out of place. It just doesn't meet N or GNG for a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Consensus appears to be that it passes WP:BARE. Fix or not fix? There is yet no consensus. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Let us try one more week
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep key plot elements or settings in famous series should get separate articles, because--as shown above--there is significant coverage if people look for it properly. The guideline I just said was proposed several years ago as a practical solution, along with everyone the next step down (either minor but non-trivial plot elements or settings in famous works or major settings or plot elements in notable but not famous works) getting a substantial section in a combined article, those in the next step down (relatively trivial elements the most famous works , minor but non-trivial ones in notable but not famous works) getting an entry in a list, and everything below that, not covered. The only reason it was not adopted was the intransigence of a few people who didn't want separate articles on any of this. I would even consider not having separate articles a possibility as long as there were substantial sections, but experience here continues to show that once the article is merged, the coverage diminishes gradually to a mere name on a list--and then the list article gets challenged. If we had a compromise solution, we could cut down substantially the work at afd, and instead work on writing and sourcing the material 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 21:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second Chinatown (disambiguation)

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

There is no topic here beyond what can be easily covered in the Chinatown article. If there was a phenomenon called "second Chinatown" then where are the books, papers and articles about it? The various instances of "second Chinatown" that I have found in book sources are mentioned in passing only; it is just as often chronological than geographical. (This article assumes only geographical.) Any city that can boast two Chinatowns, one main/original and one secondary/later one, can be described in the Chinatown article. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP is not a dictionary and not a directory. A Chinatown is a definable thing but there is not really such a thing as a second Chinatown. As both the article and this AfD nomination make clear it is an expression that is used in various ways in different places. Also WP is not a directory of Chinese neighborhoods, as useful as that could be to some people. Including me if I was looking for an Asian grocery store. Borock (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a disam page, being a guide to articles on notable neighborhoods. If the information that they are a secondary Chinatown is in that article, that's reason for inclusion I think there is probably also room for an actual article on the geographic phenomenon, and there are probably sources, but that's not what we are discussing. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a proper dab page. The only entry that I can see qualifying is Clement Street Chinatown, San Francisco. The term isn't even mentioned in most of the other linked articles, the remainder using "second" (as opposed to "Second") as a normal adjective. Also delete Third Chinatown (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not a useful dab page. We don't need this, nor "Fourth Chinatown", nor "17th Chinatown"... PamD 08:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as an "ignore all rules" disambiguation page. Although none of the linked articles have the name "Second Chinatown" to disambiguate, there entries are all secondary Chinatowns. This page serves as a navigation aid for readers who may be looking for an article on the second Chinatown in some city but do not know the name. As such Wikipedia is improved by providing this navigation aid. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As someone who grew up in the San Francisco area and knows something of the history of San Francisco Chinatown I question not only this article but the article Chinatown itself. I don't think you can lump historic Chinatowns with mere neighborhoods with lots of Chinese families or even shopping areas where Chinese owned and/or themed businesses benefit by Colocation (business). The Chinatown article says almost nothing about the extreme discrimination Chinese people faced. Borock (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, but where the keep votes acknowledge the need for changes. Two sections of the article are straight copies of the movement's website [5], which is copyrighted material, and those parts will be taken away. The nomination mentioned lack of sourcing, but that issue has been addressed by Borock. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Wine

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

No independent sources for any of the information, written like an advert. SheffGruff (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Badly written article, as noted by nom. But this source indicates that the organization, movement, or whatever is notable. Borock (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- The organisation runs a high profile Carismatic Christian conference. The article may well need improvement, but that is no reason fopr deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete or Incubate (Wikipedia:ATD-I) - Notability requirement per Wikipedia:NONPROFIT requires third party and reliable sources which have not been found to support almost all of the content. Article also falls foul of Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING as is not objective/unbiased and not verifiable with independent sources. As regards the Christian Today article - as per Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH - is the CT article suitably independent and if so is the audience of the source suitably notable? Even if both of these conditions are met the source doesn't cover most of the article's content. I've tried searching google for news articles related to "New Wine" with Shepton Mallet and the Royal Bath showground among other related search terms and nothing relevant turns up except the results from New Wine's own website, Wikipedia:DEL-REASON point 7 would seem to be met IMO. SheffGruff (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Soft delete. LFaraone 00:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamel Holley

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

Non-notable politician. Mayor of a relatively small borough in New Jersey (population ~21,000), with no indications of anything but the local coverage that might be expected of any local mayor. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. LFaraone 00:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cable Jones

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

He spent one year as develoment wrestler and 10 as independent wrestler in minor indy promotions. I think that he isn't notable. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Port Moresby International High School

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

Delete, non sourced school, does not explain notability and the only thing claimed that is that it exists. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Papua New Guinea-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It also falls under WP:ORGSIG which expressly states " No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is" This is even noted on WP:SCHOOL by way of a link to the notability guidelines. As such I will continue to bring these to AFD. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you will continue to waste our time and yours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Technically could be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7 but due the exception was made this does not apply. However the article STILL has to meet WP:ORG and WP:GNG which this one clearly does not! PantherLeapord (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a stub, but as a well established mainstream independent school, proven to exist, and providing education to grade 12 and internationally recognised exams, it clearly meets with the long standing precedent to keep such schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the locality article - per WP:WPSCH/AG. PantherLeapord (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And which part of the school article guidelines would you be referring to? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to actually read the article he's given, it's right at the top, it states "Non-notable school articles are generally redirected to the locality article or, for US schools, the school district article if available." That sounds way more condescending then it's meant but it illustrates the notability fact either way. For a school to e notable it has to pass WP:ORG guidelines and show some sort of notability. I think the problem here is that you are trying to use that school articles are usually kept to let's keep all school articles. The fact remaining ua that not all secondary schools deserve or merit articles. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have I got news for you: I wrote a large part of it. You might also like to read the 1,000s of Wikipedia school articles too, especially the one that is the subject of this AfD. And perhaps also this. Please remember that if you want to change Wikipedia practice, AfD is not the place to do it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SO you wrote a large part of it yet you had to ask...interesting. And why have a request for comment when it is implicitly covered under WP:ORG and the WP:GNG? I'm happy to keep wasting the time of anyone who wants to make blanket notability statements. It's contrary to WP:GNG and therefore I am only asking it to be followed. You are more then welcome to try and get the blanket exemption you seem to want through a RFC but I firmly believe that policy thus far is in my favor. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for schools has a good jump start with the fact that they are exempt from deletion under WP:A7 - and that is a policy. The 'blanket exemption' you are probably referring to has been the subject of many discussions and RfC, and not one of them resulted in a change to the current accepted procedures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This school is over 50 years old and has played a major role in the expatriate community of Papua New Guinea over that time as well as educating some prominent Papua New Guineans. I spent several years in Port Moresby and I recall many mentions of this school in the local press. I do not have time to chase them up, but I suggest that others look for them before assuming that this school can not meet the notability guidelines. If the school was in the US, UK or Australia, the article would be much more detailed with list of notable former pupils and so on. We do not have many editors in PNG so that country does not get the attention that more developed countries get. We need to avoid that bias. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we are occasionally sympathetic towards eligible articles concerning subjects in countries where media is not as well developed as in Western countries. That said however, according to the well established precedent already mentioned, this school clearly meets requirements. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice (U.S Season 7)

The Voice (U.S Season 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unverifiable crystal balling. No idea whether it is a hoax, wishful thinking, or insider information, but as far as I can tell, none of this has been confirmed (or even rumoured for the most part) in any sources. Fails WP:V completely. Fram (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira and Usher and returning for Season 6, that has been confirmed. I think I will redirect season 6 to The Voice JayJayWhat did I do? 17:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good call; I don't doubt they're returning, but without even auditions confirmed I don't feel anything is set in stone quite yet. Nate • (chatter) 03:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per A7 by INeverCry (talk · contribs). Note that the article was moved to Zarrin Ghazal Co. after this AfD was opened. At the time of closure Zarrin ghazal was tagged for G8 (redirect to invalid target). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zarrin ghazal

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

Possible WP:NOTE issue Josh1024 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obelisk International

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

non-notable - upon carrying out due diligence, it appears that there are no reliable third party articles about Obelisk International. This is supported by the improper referencing on the article, whereby none of the references even mention Obelisk International and seem to simply be websites of reputable organisations which either just talk about Brazilian social housing or aren't relevant to the subject at all. In no way do any of them demonstrate Obelisk International's notability. Samstreet133 (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- If what it says about having provided 1 million homes in Brazil is true, then it ought to be significant. However, that is probably the government programme. page from the company website names five developments lists five developments covering under 3500 appartments (or houses). This makes it a significant house-builder, but not on an enormous scale. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merging the content to one or more other pages is a possibilty, but that's a whole other discussion - as far as AFD goes, the consensus seems to be Keep. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh

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

The contents of the article are already present in some existing articles like Stranded Pakistanis, 1971 Bangladesh genocide etc. Hence the article is totally redundant and should be deleted. Also, none of the sources claim this as persecution, the page was a created as a POV fork as the creator threatened before. --Zayeem (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Biharis are being killed there in Bangladesh, you cannot hide the facts. At first you had concerns about the neutrality at the article's talk, then the DYK, then the merger and now "deletion"? What's the problem? Biharis are being persecuted in Bangladesh, yet the article presents a good neutral view about them. An RfC is also under progress. Therefore it is a ridiculous nomination. The article should be definitely kept. Faizan 18:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Faizan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Zayeem (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biharis are being killed source? The truth is, Biharis were only killed in 1971. My rationale is, since the topic is already covered in 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Stranded Pakistanis, the article is totally redundant. Also, I didn't see any source which states this thing as Persecution.--Zayeem (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not covered there. We need a detailed info on this touching topic. Why you opted for an AfD? Before you were creating hurdles at the talk for weeks? And now suddenly an AfD? Faizan 18:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are covered, you may add them in those relevant articles if you have anything new. There is no need for this article with a POV title. The article can also be termed as WP:POV fork, you have already threatened to have an article like this when you couldn't add your biased views in 1971 Bangladesh genocide.--Zayeem (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? POV title? See this article: "Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta". And this is personal attack of abusing an editor for "biased comments". Keep your accusations back, lest I report you at the ANI. Faizan 18:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources mention it as persecution, the title is definitely a POV. And let others decide if I had many any personal attack, however, your comments like It's just his drama-mongering may well fall under personal attacks.--Zayeem (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the sources? Faizan 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have, if you think any source claims it to be persecution then show up.--Zayeem (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of them. Even by britannica. The sources by independent NGOs also term it as likewise. Faizan 10:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, none of them term this as persecution. The only thing I found is this, which says Biharis were subject of widespread political persecution preceding and during the 1971 liberation war as well as in the aftermath of the liberation surely none of the sources says that the Biharis are still persecuted in Bangladesh.--Zayeem (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. The sources by the minority rights' organization even term it more than that. And please stop attacking me. No personal attacks. Faizan 11:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More than that? What? And you really don't know the meaning of personal attacks, do you?--Zayeem (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already stated, the topic is already covered in some existing articles, and if further addition is needed, they can be added in those relevant articles. --Zayeem (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify what is repeated and where.—Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 18:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is repeated. It's just his drama-mongering. Faizan 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Casualties, Fall of Dhaka are already covered in 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Causes, Partition, Aftermath, Present condition are covered in Stranded Pakistanis. If there is anything which is new, they can be added in those relevant articles. The whole topic can be covered in the context of those articles. No need for a separate article like this.--Zayeem (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, as now you have clarified yourself, It seems debatable... Now, considering your statement, that the things have been already put up there, It would be good to collect all such scattered information into one article. Repetetions do not matter then, I suggest you see this.—Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already told you that there is a heck of difference between sentiment and persecution. Sentiment or a genocide has a wide meaning, and it may include things from demonstrations, hatred, violence, etc, but the prosecution's definition is not fit upon the Sentiment or genocide. Faizan 18:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Stranded Pakistanis covers the entire topic of the Biharis in Bangladesh. And the 1971 Bangladesh genocide covers all the atrocities made in 1971 in Bangladesh, including that of the Biharis, so no need of this article.--Zayeem (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not cover the persecution against Biharis, which is being done even today. They are suffering and this article will be kept. Faizan 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First I shall dissect the ridiculous reasoning of Zayeem: No the information of this article is NOT present in other articles a tiny little paragraph is not sufficient to fully grasp the scope and magnitude of the Biharis persecution - maybe we should have a paragraph for the bangladesh atrocities instead? this is pure censorship your arguments themselves are redundant zayeem this article is very notable and important and the reason provided by zayeem to delete a well sourced article is pathetic at best speed keep and close. 86.151.237.220 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC) IP sock of Nangparbat Zayeem (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Yeah I would also request admins to speedy keep the AfD. It's pointless nomination. No mature reason given. Faizan 18:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me show you how your arguments are baseless Zayeem : Stranded Pakistanis Does not discuss not explore the challenges or persecution of Biharis it discusses the history and events that lead them to be stranded in there own former nation and therefore becoming stranded its discusses the political background it does not discuss the persecution they face in Bangladesh at the present time- Bangladesh atrocities article only has fleeting mention of the events of 1971ONE SMALL paragraph it does not discuss present persecution faced by the Biharis so both your arguments are flawed and full of holes!86.151.237.220 (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)— 86.151.237.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yeah the same. Stranded Pakistanis is about the stranded Bihari minority, being persecuted in Bangladesh. But the Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh is about the atrocities being plagued upon them. Faizan 19:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Literally, the context of Stranded Pakistanis covers the entire topic of the Biharis living in Bangladesh. That includes their history in Bangladesh, as well as their condition and status in Bangladesh.--Zayeem (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it to the correct place. No worries now. Faizan 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was abig flaw and has been amended. Faizan 19:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No that is nonconstructive, the article Stranded Pakistanis covers all kinds of topics related to the Biharis living in Bangladesh.--Zayeem (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing to that flaw Zayeem. Now this AfD be speedy closed. Faizan 19:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, User:Faizan is now just removing the contents of Stranded Pakistanis just to justify the new article, this is seriously disruptive. The article Stranded Pakistanis covers all kinds of topics related to the Biharis in Bangladesh. In fact the re-direct Biharis in Bangladesh also leads to that article.--Zayeem (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't oversimplify the facts. Don't know the difference between "Persecution of an ethnicity" and "Ethnicity"? Faizan 19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article on an ethnicity covers all kinds of topics related to that ethnic. Now if the article becomes too long, then we might think of splitting, which is not the matter in this case.--Zayeem (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that "Bihari" was never an ethnicity rather a term used by Bangladeshis to differentiate between Bengalis and all non Bengalis. Solomon7968 19:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah solomon. But this is evident that there ought to be separate articles for "Bengalis", "Non-Bengalis" and "Persecution of Non-Bengalis". Faizan 10:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (cackle) @ 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The main motive to create this article is to present anti-bangladeshi propaganda! there was some revenge attack against Biharis, but it was not enough to define as Persecution! Exaggerated information from controvertal and biased media (certainly collected for this article!!!!) never shows the reality!!!
Faizan-you may try yourself, but you can never cover up the 1971 Bangladesh genocide or justify that horrible deed of pakistan with your article here (remember! you have already threatened)!!! you know nothing about bangladesh except what you have collected from some anti-bangladeshi pakistani media!


For your attention, In 1971 Bangladeshis were called by Tikka Khan and Yahya Khan as culprits. On the other hand Mir Abdul Aziz and Malik Ghulam Jilani named them as victims! They all were pakistani! and it is your choice to find out who was right and neutral!

another thing! I have no problem to show the negative situation of Bangladesh! but it should be fair and neutral, almost in the near of reality! Samudrakula (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am completely uninvolved. The topic is notable. The BBC has written of the Biharis that "they faced widespread discrimination in Bengali speaking Bangladesh" and describing a large refugee camp where they live, wrote it is "notorious for its cramped conditions, poor sanitation and shortages of electricity and running water." Enough said. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is denying the fact that there is discrimination against the Biharis, but as the topic is already covered in Stranded Pakistanis, do we need a separate article for this one? Also, none of the sources claim it to be persecution, the page is a blatant POV fork as the creator already threatened before to create an article like this.--Zayeem (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very notable human rights issue and has extensive coverage in many academic sources. It is worth noting that the nominating editor identifies as Bangladeshi and has been previously involved in POV disputes in this article. This is obviously very important to note as there is high chance of WP:COI involved behind this AfD. The editor in concern has made several attempts to remove content from the article which purportedly does not shed Bangladesh in a very positive light. Since he could not get his way, he decided to take the dispute to the AfD route. I do not recognise this AfD as valid since it is essentially an issue of opposing POVs. The article topic itself is highly notable. It appears that this AfD is a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the single sentence nominating rationale goes to show that this is an attempt to whitewash and WP:CENSOR this notable topic away from the encyclopedia. Mar4d (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nominator's Bangladeshi nationality is a reason to disregard this nomination, what makes you think that all Pakistani editor's opinions should be considered here? If the article is in scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, its obvious that Bangladeshi editors will opine here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said anything about discarding people's opinions because of their nationality. What I have said is that the nominating editor has been involved with the article previously (in a disputable manner) and that there may be some WP:COI in this out-of-the-blue nomination. It's not a judgement, but rather an assumption. So taking this into account, the nomination should be taken with some discretion and a pinch of salt. Make of it what you want. Mar4d (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese American is of 42 kb and Japanese American internment is of 102 kb, it's quite fair to have a separate article on that one. But in this case, both Stranded Pakistanis and Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh are short articles, hence no need to have a separate article like the latter. And I guess you should know the proper meaning of WP:COI, you and Faizan were trying to move the page 1971 Bangladesh genocide as well as adding POV contents and when you both failed, you came up with this POV fork.--Zayeem (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zayeem another argument which makes no sense how on earth is this a pov fork? this contains totally different information from any other article it needs a seperate article to cover all the persecution faced by the Biharis making a small sub section on another article is classical Censoring of information due to your own POV like I said why dont we make a sub section for atrocities in 1971? this article is very sourced and contains masses of valid information 86.151.237.220 (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Faizan 10:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The main motive to create this article is to present anti-bangladeshi propaganda!" That there is enough evidence of a conflict of interest from these pov pushers Zayeem and co 86.151.237.220 (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is surely a POV fork, as mentioned before, Faizan had earlier threatened to create a page like this when he couldn't add his biased contents in 1971 Bangladesh genocide. The topic of the article largely overlaps with Stranded Pakistanis, 1971 Bangladesh genocide which is clearly visible. Also, I would like to point that User:Faizan is removing others' comments in this AfD as he did here.--Zayeem (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove comments by "others". I reverted a sock puppet of a user here, who lives in Germany. He made his first edit in the AfD. Faizan 11:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is surely a bad joke this article contains information NOT PRESENTED ANYWHERE ELSE it overlaps slightly with stranded pakistanis only because of the background information and political issues that are discussed this article is about PERSECUTION etc faced by the Biharis why cannot you see this? as for the "bangladesh genocide" article that article is a bunch of crap one minor paragraph about the plight of Biharis is not enough so please end your nonsensical arguments 86.151.237.220 (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore the 1971 Bangladesh genocide article is about 1971 not the many years after it that is about history a short period of oppression against Biharis the 42 years since has seen the persecution persist this basically means we should forget about the last 42 years and the present situation this makes no sense at all also this is about health, eocnomics voting etc not just killings. This AFD is nothing more than WP:CENSOR attempt by pov pushers 86.151.237.220 (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stranded Pakistanis covers the entire topic of the Biharis in Bangladesh, it won't change even if Faizan keeps removing the contents of the article. Your arguments are baseless.--Zayeem (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. It is just about the "Non-Bengali" community stranded in Bangladesh". Whereas "Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh is for the persecution and discrimination being done with them. Faizan 11:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No again Zayeem your pov is apparent that article is about the causes and political issues not the human rights and persecution faced by them it only mentions a fleeting mark about the conditions which is not sufficient this deserves a separate article as the information is large and notable clumping and condensing and belittling the plight of Biharis is once again WP:CENSOR which is your ultimate aim at the end of the day arguing with you is futile as your arguments hold no water 86.151.237.220 (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As said before, an article on an ethnicity covers all kinds of topics related to that ethnic. The article Stranded Pakistanis is on the Bihari community in Bangladesh, naturally the article covers all kinds of topics related to the Bihari community in Bangladesh. Now if the article becomes too long, then we might think of splitting, which is not the matter in this case.--Zayeem (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, the "Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta" cannot be deleted by the reason of that "there is another article named Hazara people" Why was not an AfD there? Totally wrong reasoning. Faizan 12:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it before, the article Hazara people is too long (53 kb), hence the separate article on their persecution is justified. Moreover, the article Hazara people is about the entire Hazara population in the world, not just about those living in Pakistan.--Zayeem (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not judged by Google Hits or the Size of the article. Don't measure it in KBs. Faizan 12:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not judging notability by the size of the article, see WP:SPLIT. Also don't remove others' posts in the AfD as you did it for the second time here. --Zayeem (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Zayeem: Merging all the content into the Stranded Pakistanis article would make that article heavily based on persecution and human rights rather than the non-Bengali community in Bangladesh. This would cause a serious problem with regard to WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. Hence, it is feasible for both articles to remain seperate. Both articles are related, but they are not the same as you seem to be asserting. Mar4d (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are actually same. Stranded Pakistanis mostly talks about the miserable life standards and other problems faced by the Biharis in Bangladesh, so is Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. If you can add any contents rather than those discriminations against the Biharis and the article becomes too long, then we might think of having a separate article. Until then, I don't see any justification behind the existence of the latter.--Zayeem (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (e beginning of the AfD should be restored and should be fully protected until the AfD closes.--Zayeem (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why this irrelevant note here? It is under discussion there at the article's talk. Faizan 12:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite relevant here. You are just removing the contents and edit warring even after I have asked you to restore the previous revision.--Zayeem (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This should stop atleast now. It cannot be tolerated, User:Kmzayeem. He was posting on talk pages of other users, and even now trying the best. Faizan 15:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested temporary full protection for Stranded Pakistanis because of the edit warring by you two. What's canvassing there? First get yourselves competent about the policies before constantly accusing others.--Zayeem (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for protection, or asking an admin to look into questionable behavior, is not canvassing. I think you all should drop the personal attacks and accusations. None of it is helping your case for keeping the article. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have more than just "suggested" instead of sneakily trying to canvass others admit your nefarious activities for once let me remind of your comment on the admins page "The reason of the AfD is that the contents of the article Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh largely overlaps with Stranded Pakistanis and is also a POV fork" your such a bad liar I actually feel sorry for you again please stop canvassing RameshJain9 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ramesh 86.151.237.220 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have much of an opinion on this topic so I shall not vote. RameshJain9 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramesh, No this is not Canvassing, Canvassing means to ask an editor to participate in an AfD who would vote in your favor. I asked an admin (to whom I've interacted for the first time) to have a full protection on Stranded Pakistanis, since this AfD is relevant behind the reason of that protection, I mentioned about the AfD, but I never asked him to participate in it.--Zayeem (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is you provided your own commentry to suite your POV in order to sway an admins decisions with this comment "The reason of the AfD is that the contents of the article Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh largely overlaps with Stranded Pakistanis and is also a POV fork" you jumped onto an article not related to your query and provided your opinion on it so this is canvassing albeit very subtle 86.151.237.220 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The admins reply seems to concur with my flagging of your canvassing "Forum Shopping" just let it go Zayeem and let the closing admins deal with the articles it will not help to try and muddy the waters any further chill and see what happens. 86.151.237.220 (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The post was about the protection. And what about your constant attack messages in my talk page? Is that how you try to win over an AfD? By attacking others? --Zayeem (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that is an attack than surely you need to find a new hobby....86.151.237.220 (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not willing to reply on your nonsense. If you don't have anything constructive to argue, just leave. Don't derail the discussion, this is not a forum.--Zayeem (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Derailing? I am not the one sending messages desperately to garner support for a delete vote I am not the one trying to get admins to side with me please look at your own behaviour then point the finger from I think I more or less have undressed your weak arguments in this article above you keep going in circles I will leave it to admins now 86.151.237.220 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't give any valid arguments, all you did is just making personal attacks.--Zayeem (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the article and its references concern the Stranded Pakistani refugee issue in Bangladesh, and nothing specific on actual atrocities, alleged war crimes and discrimination against Biharis. Either neutral editors take over this article, or a new article should be created by seasoned editors concerning the ethnic communal violence of the 1971 war and the specific reprisal attacks faced by Biharis in the weeks following the end the war.--ArmanJ (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Faizan 13:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Per Mard and IP arguments very well sourced and informative article. Kratos007745757 (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat Zayeem (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Ascetic, my rationale is that the article was created as a POV fork with contents that were already covered in some existing articles. The creator has also threatened before to create an article like this. Moreover, the issue is never termed as persecution. Now about the article on Jesus, it is some 170 kb long so it's fair to have separate articles related to Jesus as referred in WP:SPLIT. But in this case the mother article Stranded Pakistanis is not that long to have a separate article concerned with the same issue.--Zayeem (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The very purpose of the Stranded Pakistani article is to cover the humanitarian issues of Biharis. And wartime atrocities against Biharis in 1971 were part of the 1971 Bangladesh genocide and hence should be covered there. Those two articles are much stronger representations of the topic than this prejudiced and inaccurate piece will ever be.--ArmanJ (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to but in who decided Stranded Pakistanis "very purpose" is to highlight the plight of biharis? did you just come up with that assumption on the spot? that article is definitely not appropriate to contain the issue of human rights abuses. RameshJain9 (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@User:RameshJain9 You clearly don't understand my points. Human rights abuses, which include war crimes, are meant to be covered in 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Humanitarian issues, i.e. refugee camps, are supposed to covered in Stranded Pakistani. --ArmanJ (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant note This is an AfD. Not a forum. You will trust "Library of Congress", but are those tons of the sources supporting the article not trustworthy? Faizan 08:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the note is quite relevant here and an important one as the sources strongly refute the fact that the Biharis are being persecuted in Bangladesh.--Zayeem (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot refute. Facts mare Facts. Faizan 08:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ArmanJ your first source does not refute anything unfortunately and your second source sounds pretty shady to me more of a opinion piece than anything else. However the reference list of the article contain neutral sources and respected sources which categorically state human rights issues are ongoing these two flimsy sources sadly add no weight to your argument. RameshJain9 (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Faizan, User:RameshJain9, oh its not just these sources, but most references in the article do not support your baseless claims.

*Keep After much consideration and review I believe this article is relevant and appropriate it covers human rights issues which are still on going despite claims by Zayeem et al BBC has recently produced articles and documentaries on the plight of Biharis I have read a few this year. Zayeem giving someone the right to vote while they live in horrid conditions does not make things better I am surprised there are people out there who still believe Biharis are not be persecuted when up to date sources from neutral avenues claim otherwise it is a well referenced article and any attempt to delete is pure WP:CENSOR as for Zayeem et al your arguments hold very little water and personally to me sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT (please do not take this personally) the other articles of which you speak of are not sufficient to fully state the issue and so the topic in my opinion is worthy of a stand alone article. RameshJain9 (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat Zayeem (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment ^^ Weird how new users and single purpose accounts keep springing up in this discussion. Do people like Ramesh Jain and Faizan even have a clue of what's written in their sources? Since 1972, has there been a single riot or pogrom against Biharis? Has there ever been a state-sponsored or systematic persecution campaign against Biharis? They reside in refugee camps run by UNHCR and the Red Cross. A leading Pakistani newspaper notes, "In all fairness to Dhaka, the onus of responsibility for these Bihari-Pakistanis lies with Islamabad while much of the blame for their present plight must also be apportioned to the Bihari-Pakistani leaders themselves." User:Faizan and his gang have distorted the actual humanitarian issue with their own uninformed, jumbled up, deeply prejudiced, baseless self imposed POVs.--ArmanJ (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment^^Strange how nationalists do not understand what human rights abuses are then in their desperation accuse others of being single purpose accounts. Do Armanj et al even have an ounce of neutrality within them?. You wave around a single OP-ED source as the word of god do not make me laugh Persecution does not have to be a pogrom I understand this article may be hurting your bangla nationalism but this is a reality of Biharis in your nation. Zayeem armanJ etc are all Bangladeshi nationalists and beyond that I don't see how they could ever see the truth of the sources provided disgusting behaviour unfortunately many Bengalis are still playing the victims since 1971 this is not the case any more get over it and be neutral for once. RameshJain9 (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat Zayeem (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC) *Note Even though certain users such as Armanj are trying to divert the AFD by shoving sources here and there to add weight in their argument those two sources are miniscule compared to these :^ Moss, Peter (2005). Secondary Social Studies For Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 93. ISBN 9780195977042. Retrieved June 10, 2013. [reply]

Reliable sources

^ Google books ^ a b Zehra, Batool. "The other side of history". Tribune.com.pk. Retrieved 2013-05-25. ^ a b "Chronology for Biharis in Bangladesh". The Minorities at Risk (MAR) Project. Retrieved 27 March 2013. ^ a b Statistics Of Pakistan's Democide ^ Siddiqui 1990, p. 153. ^ A. R. Siddiqui, East Pakistan - the Endgame: An Onlooker's Journal 1969-1971, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 171. ^ (Al Helal 2003, pp. 263–265) ^ James Heitzman and Robert Worden (eds), ed. (1989). "Pakistan Period (1947–71)". Bangladesh: A Country Study. Government Printing Office, Country Studies US. ISBN 0-16-017720-0. Retrieved 2007-06-16. ^ a b c M. R. Biju (2010). Developmental Issues in Contemporary India. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 246–. ISBN 978-81-8069-714-2. Retrieved 10 June 2013. ^ a b Hamoodur Rahman Commission, Chapter 2, Paragraph 33 ^ "3 MILLION Slaughtered Sheik MUJIB Charges 'Greatest Massacre'" The Portsmouth Herald, Monday, 17 January 1972, Portsmouth, New Hampshire ^ Hill et al, page 13 ^ Chatterji - Spoils of partition. Page 166 ^ Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar (1 January 2007). The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia: Refugees, Boundaries, Histories. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-13846-8. Retrieved 7 June 2013. ^ "Two-Nation Theory Exists". Pakistan Times.[dead link] ^ Carlo Caldarola (1982). Religions and societies, Asia and the Middle East. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-90-279-3259-4. "... Hindu and Muslim cultures constitute two distinct, and frequently antagonistic, ways of life, and that therefore they cannot coexist in one nation ..." ^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, pp. 221–222 ^ "Two Nation Theory: The Myth, The Reality". Story of Pakistan. Retrieved 2013-06-07. ^ a b Brad K. Blitz; Maureen Lynch (1 January 2011). Statelessness and Citizenship: A Comparative Study on the Benefits of Nationality. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 117–. ISBN 978-1-84980-899-6. Retrieved 10 June 2013. ^ Nalini Natarajan; Emmanuel Sampath Nelson (1 January 1996). Handbook of Twentieth-Century Literatures of India. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 256–. ISBN 978-0-313-28778-7. Retrieved 10 June 2013. ^ "PRC Wants Urgent Steps for Biharis’ Repatriation", Arab News ^ "MQM demands issuance of CNICs to Biharis-2004", Dawn, 8 February 2004 ^ The Guardian ^ "Bangladesh State and the Refugee Phenomenon - The Bihari Refugees", South Asia Forum for Human Rights ^ "Citizens of Nowhere: The Stateless Biharis of Bangladesh", Refugees International 2006 report ^ Refugees International (see below) ^ "Musharraf wraps up Bangladesh visit", BBC News, 31 July 2002 ^ a b c d Christian Gerlach (14 October 2010). Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World. Cambridge University Press. pp. 148–. ISBN 978-1-139-49351-2. Retrieved 30 March 2013. ^ a b Qutubuddin Aziz (1974). Blood and tears. Publications Division, United Press of Pakistan. Retrieved 4 June 2013. ^ "Controversial book accuses Bengalis of 1971 war crimes". BBC News. 5 June 2013. ^ "Massacre of Biharis in Bangladesh". The Age. March 15, 1972. Retrieved 2013-06-04. ^ Saikia, Yasmin (2011). Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971. Duke University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-8223-5038-5. ^ a b Gerlach, Christian (2010). Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70681-0. ^ Bennett Jones, Owen (2003). Pakistan: eye of the storm (2nd revised ed.). Yale University Press. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-300-10147-8. ^ a b "Bangla Biharis weary of wait to migrate to Pakistan". Rediff.com. Retrieved 2013-06-05. ^ Shah, Mehtab Ali (1997). The Foreign Policy of Pakistan: Ethnic Impacts on Diplomacy 1971-1994. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 1860641695. ^ "Will Nitish's visit boost Biharis in Pakistan?". Times of India. Retrieved 2013-06-05. ^ "Biharis of Bangladesh, World Directory of Minorities". Faqs.org. Retrieved 2013-05-25. ^ http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/study-abroad/100714/bangladesh-ethnic-persecution-bihari-bengali ^ a b http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2008/articles/1313.pdf ^ "Vote for 'stranded Pakistanis'", BBC News, 6 May 2003 ^ Mixed feelings over Bihari ruling - BBC News 28 May, 2003 ^ "Bangladesh: Stateless Biharis Grasp for a Resolution and Their Rights", Refugees International ^ "Court rules that young Biharis are Bangladesh citizens". Reuters. 19 May 2008. ^ a b "Citizenship for Bihari refugees". BBC News. 19 May 2008. ^ "Citizenship for Bihari refugees". BBC News. 2008-05-19. 7407757. Retrieved 2008-05-21.

These 47 sources clearly illustrate what is going on in Bangladesh no matter how much Armanj trys to divert the AFD yet againRameshJain9 (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat Zayeem (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

  • Suggestion: Leaving aside all the crap from the user above, I’d point out that all these 47 sources concern either- 1) the atrocities, war crimes and reprisal attacks against Biharis during the Bangladesh war and its aftermath, or 2) the issue of Stranded Pakistani refugees and their discrimination in Bangladesh. The purpose of this article suggests a prolonged historical persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, but this assertion is not supported by these references. Much of the article’s content overlaps with that of 1971 Bangladesh genocide and Stranded Pakistanis. The Stranded Pakistani page is desperately in need of expansion, especially given recent developments, and all legitimate information regarding the refugee camps should be shifted there. The 1971 atrocities should be covered in the 1971 genocide article. Those two articles are much stronger representations of the topic than this one.User:ArmanJ

*Suggestion: Well the above user is obviously full of garbage going around in circles stating the same thing over and over my keep vote above explains how this article is tremendously necessary however much it irks nationalist vandals it is a legitimate article end of discussion I do not feel the need to argue with brain dead nationalists. RameshJain9 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat Zayeem (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Well, nobody is interested in your original research. You have inserted a bunch of useless references but again, none of the sources state this issue as persecution, and as pointed by Arman, they are mostly concerned about the violences against the Biharis in 1971, which are already covered in 1971 Bangladesh genocide. This article was created as a POV fork with a provocative title, hence it should definitely be deleted. Also, I guess you are well aware about the possible results for continuously making personal attacks. --Zayeem (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:The next time you accuse me of socking we will meet in ANI just because more people clearly want this article to stay doesn't mean the world is conspiring against you. RameshJain9 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

  • Note to closing admin A number of users primarily Armanj and Zayeem continuously use the same old redundant arguments over and over again they have all been undone in the discussion above. Furthermore the article contains many reliable neutral references which explicitly state that Biharis are persecuted take the first lead reference for example clearly states persecution during 1971 and after it I still do not understand why these two disruptive users continue to divert and confuse users with the same old rubbish they call "arguments" I will leave this up to the admins its clearly impossible to sway such pov pushers and hence I do not want any one of the disruptive users above making another useless reply to this note of mine. RameshJain9 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat Zayeem (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • I think you all should stop making notes and remarks and comments. No admin here needs your advice. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep There are very strong differing opinions worded quite verbosely here. This discussion came to my attention from an RfC, and I think this article's appropriateness on Wikipedia should be resolved before committing so much energy towards other aspects of it.

The main opposition would appear to be the following:

  1. The subject matter is already covered by the 1971 Bangladesh genocide and Stranded Pakistanis articles
  2. None of the cited sources characterize the Bihari discrimination as "persecution"

I will note that the decision to completely remove the Refugee crisis section from Stranded Pakistanis was exactly the kind of thing WP:POINT warns against. However, at this point, it would appear that the content of this article has grown rather extensive, and so if lack of size and comprehensiveness were reasons to bar such an article, those arguments are no longer strong and this topic appears to be turning into its own kind of thing. It would no longer be appropriate to paste all of this information into 1971_Bangladesh_genocide#Violence_against_Biharis or Stranded Pakistanis#Refugee crisis

As to the second point, it would appear that in fact, quite a few of the cited sources characterize the Biharis' treatment as persecution. Some of the examples are cited here in this discussion. The Tribune article about writer Aquila Ismail explicitly says, "But curiously, little has been written about the persecution faced by the Biharis."

The article does not claim that the violence of 1971 continues to today. The lead identifies the 1971 persecution of that time period as its main subject and later details the "Aftermath" of discrimination against Biharis living in Bangladesh who wish to repatriate to Pakistan. It would completely make sense to view their discrimination as a kind of "persecution", but the article does not say that the violence of the 40s and 70s is currently occurring.

I will just finally say that the opposition to this article needs to be more finely focused. If you object to the article's entire existence, why debate any particular aspect of it? That is to say: If an article should be rejected because it makes false and redundant claims, why even talk about writing it in a way that would remove its bias? Ender and Peter 22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my concern was that none of the sources say that the Biharis are still being persecuted. Even the writer in the tribune article primarily talks about the 1971 events. The contents have grown extensive, but if you go through the whole article, you will see a number of repetitions. Now, if the sections on refugee crisis and present conditions are to be kept in that article, what would be the main subject of Stranded Pakistanis which currently holds only the historical contexts? According to your observations, the article's main subject is the violences committed against the Biharis in 1971, now in that case shouldn't the article be titled as 1971 persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh? Even then, the whole article would be under the context of 1971 Bangladesh genocide. If you view their current status as a kind of "persecution", then why not having the title simply as Persecution of Biharis as the Biharis are facing the same discriminations in Pakistan as well? --Zayeem (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biharis in Pakistan are not facing the "same discrimination" as they are in Bangladesh, as you seem to imply. In Pakistan, they are not stateless or confined to refugee camps. They are not victims of politically-motivated hatred or called labels like "traitor", "Razakar" etc. Whatever discrimination may exist against them in Pakistan is mostly racial or stereotypical, and that type of "discrimination" (if that's what you want to call it) is present against pretty much every ethnic group in Pakistan. One only needs to visit Karachi to understand. The difference is, that in Bangladesh, the discrimation against Biharis has a political and nationalist dimension to it as well. Please do not try to equate the two different situations. Mar4d (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then shouldn't the article be titled as Persecution of Biharis as they also faced violences and discriminations in other places as well? --Zayeem (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They do face persecutions elsewhere, but it is not in the same context as that of Bangladesh. As I have said above, the discrimination against Biharis in Bangladesh has political, historical, nationalist and to a large extent, state-sanctioned dimensions. It is a well documented human rights topic that has coverage in a vast mix of independent sources and is highly notable. That's why we have this sub-article. I am really curious as to what makes you think persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh is the "same" as persecution of Biharis elsewhere. It is not. Mar4d (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"political, historical, nationalist and to a large extent, state-sanctioned dimensions", this is the exact sort of BS exaggerated by you and your gang just to get back at Bangladesh. The BBC and other sources certainly don't go to this level. You people have conveniently left out the most important aspect of the issue, that of Pakistan's refusal to repatriate its own citizens who want to be Pakistani and not Bangladeshi (despite Bangladesh's offer of citizenship). A link was posted here of a Pakistani editorial blaming the Pakistani government for not owing up to its own stranded people. The fault lies equally with Pakistan.--ArmanJ (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, I will reiterate that none of the sources claim that the present condition of the Biharis in Bangladesh falls under "Persecution". If you are going with the discriminations against them, they are facing even more in Pakistan, there are enough references supporting that. A report by an Arab newspaper states that the Punjabis in Pakistan have occupied the land which were allocated to the Biharis. They are also facing ethnic riots there. There is no such incidence in Bangladesh, so why this provocative title then? --Zayeem (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are Biharis in Pakistan stateless? Are they confined like prisoners in refugee camps? Are they called "traitors"? Does the government intentionally neglect them like it is in Bangladesh? These simple questions are enough to rebut your inappropriate comparisons. Mar4d (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biharis in Pakistan are also considered stateless and living in inhuman conditions. Biharis have been granted citizenship and voting rights in Bangladesh, while those living in Pakistan are still urging for these rights. --Zayeem (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many Biharis were repatriated from Bangladesh to Pakistan. And many Bengalis from Bangladesh are also in Pakistan. This article is about those immigrants as they are not registered. There are other Biharis who are not in the same category - they migrated to West Pakistan post-partition and are part of the Muhajir ethnic group, and enjoy full rights as citizens of Pakistan. So again, the plight of these Biharis originates from their conditions in Bangladesh. The repatriated Biharis (ones who came from Bangladesh) should not be confused with the already-settled Biharis who are Muhajirs of Karachi and are Pakistani citizens, like all other Muhajirs since 1947. Mar4d (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is worth noting that the article above is talking about Biharis and Bengalis. Keeping in mind that there are close to 2 million (or more) Bangladeshi-origin Bengalis in Pakistan, not all of the population facing citizenship issues is Bihari. The reason why they are not citizens yet is because they came from Bangladesh and are unregistered immigrants. That is a different context altogether from the conditions of Biharis in Bangladesh, where they have been purposely denied rights and citizenship solely due to their ethnicity and their opposition of Bangladesh's independence. Like each time in this AfD, you are consistently missing the context in your attempts to equate the Biharis of Bangladesh with other Biharis. Mar4d (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meaningless arguments. Even in Bangladesh, there are many Biharis who have assimilated with the mainstream Bangladeshis and living a normal life just like other Bangladeshis. Your arguments don't really refute the fact that the Biharis are facing bloated discriminations with inhuman living standards in Pakistan, even worse than Bangladesh.--Zayeem (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your sole objective here is to whitewash this topic away from the encylopedia, using weak WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments and unconvincing counter-points attempting to portray Bangladesh as a heaven for Biharis (when the reality is quite the opposite), this discussion is becoming centered on your denial of facts rather than an objective AfD dialogue. I have no interest to engage with you in this any further. I'll let this be my last comment and leave it to the admins to decide the outcome of this AfD. Mar4d (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if it's your last comment, otherwise your persistent personal attacks would get you nowhere. Also, the way you put the irrelevant policy links is called WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, which, as always, puts no value in your arguments.--Zayeem (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch Marketing

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

Apparently non-notable company. Proposed deletion was declined by C Inglish (talk · contribs) without comment. Article creator's username (Murdoch M (talk · contribs) indicates conflict of interest. Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Wood (United States Army officer)

William Wood (United States Army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable army officer - tagged for notability in 2010. Can we decide one way or another? Believe he fails WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No longer the highest ranking fatality in Iraq. Colonel appears to be the highest rank of any U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war. According to an Associated Press database of U.S. military deaths in Iraq, at least eight other Army or Army Reserve colonels have died in the now-5-year-old war. At least one of those was promoted to that rank posthumously. [8] Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the Associated Press has a searchable database and based on its search results, there were 32 LTC and COLs, of which 10 were COLs that were killed in Iraq; in addition there was one Navy Captain killed in Iraq as well. The only way to determine which is the highest ranked, is to see who had the highest time in grade, as I am not aware of any general or flag officers killed in Iraq. Now general or flag officers would be considered notable per WP:SOLDIER, Colonels or Navy Captains are not considered presumed notable (as general and flag officers go through congressional approval and are technically presidential appointments here in the United States). The question is does the subject of this AfD meet WP:GNG, or received considerable coverage outside of the subject's death (which is questionable). Now if the subject only received significant coverage due to their death than I can understand WP:NOTMEMORIAL being applicable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er...the bar of WP:SOLDIER is deliberately high, as it's intended to "catch" notable personages who are missed by WP:GNG. If somebody passes WP:GNG/WP:NPERSON then whether they meet WP:SOLDIER or not is irrelevant - WP:SOLDIER only comes into play for people who aren't otherwise notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, while WP:NOTMEMORIAL isn't a deletion guideline per se, it's classified as stuff your not supposed to include. People cite WP:NOT all the time as valid reasons for deletion. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What sourcing? There is a broken CNN.com link, a one paragraph announcement of this death by Gannett, and a self-published memorial page. Am I missing something? EricSerge (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HIGH MIDDLE AGE OF CZECH LAND

HIGH MIDDLE AGE OF CZECH LAND (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May be hoax Josh1024 (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HIGH MIDDLE AGE OF CZECH LAND (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May be hoax Josh1024 (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A hoax, no, but it does have problems. It has no clear claim to notability. In fact, the lack of a lead leaves the whole purpose somewhat in doubt (I think it should be Bohemia, by the way). It is hard to tell if this represents a summary of the consensus of a notable body of scholarly writings, or just the opinions of the one cited authors, especially the "Bad as well as happy era" bit. In summary, I don't know what to make of it all. Agricolae (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what has no clear claim to notability -- the history of a country in the middle ages? or do you mean its not enough to split form the main article? As for the writing, it does seem a summary based on a textbook, with the normal sort of judgments of such books. It would be very easy to make it neutral--as for sources, there are dozens of English language books covering the period, some devoted to the history of this particular area in this particular period.</ref> I noticed that none of the existing articles here seem to cover the period adequately; the first thing I did was to look for duplication. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no claim to notability or significance, that's what. The article doesn't really even say what it is about (and it is not the history of the country during the middle ages - it is limited to a specific 150-year span). It just starts with the inheritance after the death of the first King of Bohemia, then descends into nationalistic semantics at the end of the first section. ('They called it Bohemia in Latin, but it was really called Czechia, and the Czech people thus became a unified tribe that would become a nation, but not the Moravians'? - well they also called it Bohemia in just about every other European language, still do in reference to this time period, and it was already a kingdom. The whole bit about the Czech tribe then becoming unified (except for those who weren't) reads more like a national foundation myth than history.) I have my concerns about this article, although my inability to read the source and a lack of clear exposition make it hard to evaluate (and even somewhat difficult to articulate). If it is about the "Land of the Czechs" during the High Middle Ages (as the author seems to intend), I would definitely question the notability of that geographical/ethnographical area during the medieval period (and again, it chooses to ignore the Moravians, who were Czech). If it is about the Kingdom of Bohemia, it plucks what to me looks like an arbitrarily-selected 150-year period out of the broader span of the medieval kingdom, so may not be notable, as such. Is this really a notably distinct period, like Tudor England, or does it just happen to be the time period the author of the sole cited source chose to study due to personal whim or because he ran out of funds and had to start writing however far he had gotten in his research by that point? (For example, my gut says that most historians are going to begin with the first king, and not with the second.) Again, I don't know, and there is insufficient information given (e.g. in a lead) to determine whether this particular span of years has special significance. About the first 1/3 of Kingdom of Bohemia covers this period. Do we need a separate article on this particular time frame as opposed to just expanding that article, or perhaps an article with different bounds including the same period or part of it? It is not obvious to me that this article represents the best way to deal with this nation and period (and it is not obvious that it isn't). Agricolae (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the Czech lands in the High Middle Ages in the Czech high school textbooks usually cover the period starting with the rule of Vladislav II (c.1110–1174) and ending with Henry of Bohemia (c.1265–1335), see for example Dějepis pro gymnázia a střední školy II (History for Gymnasia and High Schools II) by Petr Čornej, who is without any doubt an authority in this field. The chapter is called "Czech State in the High Middle Ages" (pp. 61 -63) and suggests that the period as such is notable in the context of the Czech lands. The (not only political) development in the Czech lands had its own course and specifics and it is entirely possible to cover the period separately. The famous era of Luxembourg kings is sometimes mistakenly called the High Middle Ages, however, it is in fact the Late Middle Ages. Moravia was a part of the Kingdom of Bohemia since the rule of Bretislaus I (1002/1005 - 1055). Our article is barely comprehensible mess, but the topic is notable and has room for improvements. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Win the War stamp

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

Not notable by itself. Should be in the main US article or not at all. No assertion of notability. Article has not developed. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. LFaraone 00:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Hollywood

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

This stamp issue is not notable in itself. One of many similar special issues by the USPS. References merely confirm that the USPS puts famous people on stamps to raise money. No assertion of notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines–Ukraine relations

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

fails WP:GNG. this article hinges on 2 primary sources. One of them merely compares there is no resident ambassador. The other is a copy about trade. The relations need third party sources. LibStar (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of America

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

This stamp issue is not notable in itself. One of many similar issue by the USPS. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paras Rajput

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

Might not pass WP:POLITICIAN Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hodgy Beats. LFaraone 01:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 2 EP

Untitled 2 EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mixtapes generally fail WP:NALBUMS and this is no special exclusion to that rule. A random mixtape that received little to no promotion prior to dropping, and has not been covered widely in reliable sources outside of the brief mention of its release. STATic message me! 00:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All those sources just cover the release of it, and say basically the same thing. There is not enough information on the mixtape to have its own stand alone article. Definitely worth a merge but should not have its own article. STATic message me! 19:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Dicky

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC, no substantive coverage by reliable third party sources. SFK2 (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to meet those criteria meanly an article it's flagged as must be kept. His increasing popularity while still in the early stage of his career might justify this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.238.29 (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found him on Facebook. Should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.199.212 (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginal Jesus

AfDs for this article:
Vaginal Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not assert notability, no reliable sources, fails WP:BAND. Boogerpatrol (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note result of prior Afd was delete, though this was several years ago. Propose a salt if consensus/ closing admin determines this is appropriate. Boogerpatrol (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Felix (musical group)

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

Non-notable group, most releases appear to be online only, little third party coverage. Earlier version speedied during AFD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Felix. Hairhorn (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]



King Felix on nme (music news website) [1] King Felix official music video with over 300,000 views and comments for a single video. [2]

Gene93k is believed to be abusing the topic King Felix. Reasoning: multiple source proof of king felix sources moved and ignored by user Gene93k on multiple entries. example published magazine bunker hill reference post of king felix music repeatedly denied by user Gene93k. This leads to reasoning that Gene93k is vandalising/abusing information on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwoulddawforyou (talk • contribs) — Iwoulddawforyou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.



King Felix in downtown Los angeles new years eve headlining event. [3]v=10151143774430107&set=vb.206548683433&type=3&theater official videos King Felix in bunker hill magazine and flyer for events -[4] [5]

king felix in bunker hill magazine printed magazine release March issue- https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=229810457112942&set=a.103976523029670.6443.100002519680841&type=1&theater and original print - [6]

famous artist steve aoiki also in bunker hill magazine. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=407823168433&set=a.440797878433.231693.206548683433&type=3&theater steve aoki also headlined a bunker hill event. [7]

lana del ray cover of march issue King Felix was in, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150613162048434&set=a.442087218433.233908.206548683433&type=1&relevant_count=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro-ranma (talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC) — Retro-ranma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

File:King Felix (Musical Group) Live 2013 Secret Location North California.jpg
King Felix (Musical Group) Live 2013 Secret Location North California. electronic dance music artist.
File:King Felix alternate healing code.jpg
King Felix music group triangle alternate for healing code album release. electronica, bass music
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro-ranma (talk • contribs) 11:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This Goup does hold notability. released tracks on multiple record labels, porcs records, itchy tasty records, and group in union with ascap registration with songs home free, medicinal hookers,

physical albums are out example http://www.amazon.com/01-King-Felix-Touching-Original/dp/B009ZRX4DO http://www.discogs.com/King-Felix-The-Healing-Code/release/4566188 as well as legitimate online retailer beatport.com group also performs regularly in los angles and other areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.104.73 (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC) — 76.168.104.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


most releases appear to be online only, Again This is not true, I have linked physical copies to King Felix's albums on discogs, amazon and more already. and again stated numerous sources on their impact and interaction with the edm community.

here are more images if need i found in commons http://www.google.com/imgres?start=416&safe=off&biw=1536&bih=794&tbs=sur:f&tbm=isch&tbnid=rCx5rYcF2i2JqM:&imgrefurl=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KingFelixMusic.png&docid=Z72BVsIcydzsKM&itg=1&imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/KingFelixMusic.png&w=1920&h=1080&ei=QVGyUaqKCsmxiQLetIGQCg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:44,s:400,i:136&iact=rc&dur=307&page=15&tbnh=168&tbnw=295&ndsp=29&tx=184&ty=67

http://www.google.com/imgres?safe=off&biw=1536&bih=794&tbs=sur:f&tbm=isch&tbnid=t07v_qVUCEn0rM:&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Felix.jpg&docid=ZIEQHG6DsqCpvM&itg=1&imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/King_Felix.jpg&w=516&h=420&ei=l1CyUeGpOof1igKomoGYAw&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:3,s:0,i:105&iact=rc&dur=2&page=1&tbnh=177&tbnw=206&start=0&ndsp=20&tx=73&ty=73

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/87638311/King%2BFelix%2Bimage.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.last.fm/music/King%2BFelix&h=500&w=500&sz=40&tbnid=i0-wk2xjG5FNLM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=96&zoom=1&usg=__RMlDUB5r8ZRRayc5s9h9aEngKhk=&docid=Ri9m3dnjggd6FM&sa=X&ei=RVKyUbWGLOb_igLFhIDgBg&ved=0CD8Q9QEwBDgK&dur=181— Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro-ranma (talk • contribs)

  • Keep Sources are independent of king felix, ie porcs records, Itchy Tasty Records, bunker hill published printed magazine, peace love edm, nme. None of these were posted or created by king felix. also the groups formation was in 2011. King felix is more than a year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwoulddawforyou (talk • contribs) 09:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iwoulddawforyou (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Labels connected to the band are obviously not independent parties. The NME page is user-generated content (so does little to establish notability), and links to a performance hosted by a magazine isn't coverage. LIkewise, image searches establish nothing. See WP:BAND for the relevant criteria. Hairhorn (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nme.com/nme-video/youtube/id/iUWIqy1SmGQ/search/%2Bthe%20members
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUWIqy1SmGQ&list=PL8y0KOAy3uQ1dTuY2rlrvvCH7aaoXroIN
  3. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hyMVKP22sqc and https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?
  4. ^ https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150437290703434&set=a.442087218433.233908.206548683433&type=1&relevant_count=1
  5. ^ https://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/eventReg?oeidk=a07e5fjax7u16b2e28a&oseq
  6. ^ http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/32001110
  7. ^ https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151144905850107&set=vb.206548683433&type=3&theater
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odin (Android)

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

Creator removed my tag for G11 and then a new tag was placed for G2 but was declined. I am starting an AfD. This is advertising/promotion page only (G11) and is not a notable company. Tyros1972 Talk 10:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIIMA Award for Best Debutant Producer

SIIMA Award for Best Debutant Producer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable award. No refs. PROD removed with a google url which returns four hits, none of which appear to mention this award. Other searching reveals a handful or forum posts and wiki entries. Nothing reliable and nothing in depth. Note that this appears to be part of a series of related articles which may have similar issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:GHITS for why that's not an appropaite answer at AfD. Note also that that search isn't for information about this topic, since the search string is "South Indian International Movie Awards"; Googling for "South Indian International Movie Awards Award for Best Debutant Producer" gives me zero hits and "SIIMA Award for Best Debutant Producer" appears to only give me this page republished by third parties. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the reverse. South Indian International Movie Awards has references, which this doesn't. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you yourself consider South Indian International Movie Awards as notable, I don't see which is your point about this spinout article, except it is unsourced. Yes, it is an unsourced article about a notable award (same as, eg, BAFTA Award for Best Makeup and Hair), and this is not a reason to delete it. Cavarrone 08:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rostam: Tales from the Shahnameh

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

No evidence for notability of this comic, or at any rate, I can't find any Pinkbeast (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found plenty of false positives for the stories that the comics are based upon, but very little that could even begin to be considered a reliable source. The best one I found was this link from the State Library of Victoria, but that's not enough to give notability. As far as the award goes, I can't find where that award is so particularly noteworthy that it would keep on that basis alone. I can't find a lot of coverage about the award itself. I know it's a foreign language award, but the thing about awards is that if they're considered to be so notable that they'd keep an article for that alone then they'll have a ton of coverage. For example, the Golden Horse is considered to be the equivalent of an Oscar in China and has coverage in multiple language sources. Even if we count the GL award towards notability, there just isn't enough to really merit an article at this point in time. If anyone can find substantial foreign language RS then I'm willing to change my argument, but there's just not really anything out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Outlaw

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

Not a notable person. Tyros1972 Talk 09:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily meets Wikipedia:ARTIST with "4.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." The article does need work but not deletion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete More references may help.--Benfold (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Artist's work has received coverage sufficient to establish notability. Aside from what has already been mentioned, a Google news search shows a lot of local coverage, but beyond that I also see articles behind pay walls in the Chicago Tribune and I found this item in the Daily Gazette of Schenectady NY. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mystique GP

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

Not a notable artist, page links to advertising sales (amazon, itunes etc.). Tyros1972 Talk 09:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I initially BLPPRODed this, and it was just shy of an A7 at the time. It looks a little better now, but some actual research does not show a particularly good level of secondary coverage. For example, "Mystique GP interview" gives me a bunch of unrelated links. Nothing out there seems to support the claims made in the article, and what claims there are are tenuous at best: "ghost writer" for other artists - that would be fine if it could be verified, but I couldn't. The alleged collaboration, if true, would have generated some coverage, but apparently it didn't. So regrettably this fails WP:MUSICBIO. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Sony Pictures Animation

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

Wikipedia is not for speculation. Tyros1972 Talk 09:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER, delete.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fenno Heath

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

Musician lacking notability. Just part of a few undergraduate groups. Heath lacks coverage in independent reliable souces. (note the NYTimes link is for a paid obit). Nothing satisfying WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Prod restored without improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Schweinsberg

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

A big promotional love fest for this musician. While he has worked for a lot of groups it appears it is only as a session musiion or touring drummer so notability is not inherited from them. (eg not listed in members) The SGN Music Awards are not major. The Dove nomination is for part of a cast of multitudes playing for the Crabb Family. A small part in one of the many many dove nominations. His photography and graphic design shows no sign of being significant. Schweinsberg lacks coverage in independent reliable souces. Nothing satisfying WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC or WP:ARTIST. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sammus Theory

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

Band lacks notability. The battle of the bands is not a major competition (Rockstar Uproar Festival Jaegermeister Battle of the Bands looks blue linked because parts of it are seperately linked). Band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has a lot of sources but none are reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about this band. Note the Colorado Gazette piece is about Rockstar Energy Drink “Uproar Festival” and only has a few short sentences about missing most of The Sammus Theory "and barely made it to see the next band, The Sammus Theory," ... "I will say from what I did hear though, that both openers did more than their share to get the festivities kicked off in a very traditionally heavy way. Props to you both, and an even bigger thank you to, The Sammus Theory, for actually not acting like rock-stars, and instead, hanging out talking with fans and signing anything until they were literally “sun burned red” from being out in the crowd for so long. Frigging awesome guys – mad props to you!". Not significant coverage. A seach found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage found. The Banner talk 10:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. LFaraone 00:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amar (Lebanese Singer)

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND. nn Taroaldo ✉ 08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until references can be provided, whereupon this can be removed from archive.--Launchballer 21:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For many reasons, ranging from the BAND notability guideline to the fact that sentences like this are utterly unencyclopedic: "As usual, Mirna blows us away with her clever and unique story board ;)". Andrew327 21:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Faint. LFaraone 00:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vverevvolf Grehv

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO as sources which do exist are crowdfunding selfpublishing websites Curb Chain (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Perkovic

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested with the rationale Information removed making reference to Perkovic as a "former player" in order to comply with terms (ie. never having played a full professional game) to avoid deleting this page. This does not change the fact that he has received insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NSPORT as player or as a manager. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : Speedily deleted as a blatant hoax. A reality show where the losers would be expelled from the class and from the country? Yes, right. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3E1 Elimination Ceremony

3E1 Elimination Ceremony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since maintenance tags I placed keep getting removed instead of anything being improved with this article, I am opening an AfD since it's been up long enough and it cannot be removed. This article does not seem to meet wiki notability standards and I am unable to find any RS. Tyros1972 Talk 08:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 21:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan–Philippines relations

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

fails WP:GNG. could not find any indepth coverage of these relations. most of the article is based on the Kazakh honorary consulate website. neither country has a resident ambassador, trade is low at USD$7.3 million, and sure 7,000 Filipinos work in Kazakhstan but that's a tiny proportion of the 9.4 million Overseas Filipinos. LibStar (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

: when a decision is made to delete content is not retained. There is nothing stopping you adding content to foreign relations articles now. Regards LibStar (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's very difficult to see why this subject should be considered notable. It's clearly very minor; there are few sources; the countries plainly have no special interest in each other, so this must be close to the bottom of the vast list of possible bilateral relationship articles. Common sense and simple facts (lack of ambassadors, etc) says this is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Okay, please delete this article. But a clearer guideline on similar articles is much appreciated--Zuanzuanfuwa (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nomination seems based on personal assessments: that USD$7.3 million of trade and 7.000 Filipinos working in Kazakhstan are irrelevant is kind of a weird notion. In general, IMHO bilateral relations are always intrinsically notable, and they can be almost always sourced reliably. Even the very fact that the relationship is factually trivial (not this case necessarily) is an interesting information to the reader, while the absence of the article does not imply so: it just leaves the reader in the dark. --Cyclopiatalk 13:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to suppose that bilateral relations are intrinsically notable. On the contrary, on occasions like this, the inherent "factually trivial" nature of the pairing - you are right there - speaks clearly of non-notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to suppose that bilateral relations are intrinsically notable. - I disagree. To me, the "what has country X to do with country Y?" is a quintessentially encyclopedic/gazeteer question (and our first pillar says: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.), and this is independent on the answer: even when the answer is "nothing", it is informative. The absence of the article instead gives no information in each sense. You're free to disagree of course. --Cyclopiatalk 13:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a kind of argument known as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and it does not necessarily have ground (In fact, you probably just gave Libstar a list of a few more article to nominate at AfD). I honestly agree with you that we have no guideline on the topic and that this looks like a case of systemic bias. We tried discussing a guideline on bilateral relationships a couple years ago, but AFAIK nothing came out of the discussion. --Cyclopiatalk 15:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the question here is not about notability but about whether this kind of article is encyclopedic. It's not about whether the information should be published, but about where it is published. My view is that the material should be in articles about the foreign relations of the Kazakhstan and Philippines — where the reader will expect to find them, not obscure and virtually unfindable pages like this one. --Kleinzach 02:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds more like a merge !vote. I'd be fine with it, if information is preserved. --Cyclopiatalk 12:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a half and half merge vote if you like. Not sure what you call that! Kleinzach 00:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by User:INeverCry per A7. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 06:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Injustice (band)

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

nonnotably fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are scant and unreliable. Curb Chain (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. LFaraone 00:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sahi school health programme

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

Article was already a "speedy delete" and deemed to be for promotion and advertizement. While I don't have anything personal against a non-profit org such as this, I am not sure if this is notable, so I opened an AfD. Tyros1972 Talk 06:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This doesn't read like an advertisement to me at all. It's a simple description of the organization's aims and activities that doesn't use any kind of promotional language or hype. In any case, that would be an issue for clean-up, not deletion. The only issue remaining is notability; I didn't find much in English but I'd expect there to be more coverage in Arabic than English. It's important to consider sources in other languages: imagine how much of Wikipedia's content on Europe and North America we'd delete if we only looked for sources in Arabic, for example (or Hindi or Mandarin). Dricherby (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I removed a very small amount of promotional language. Given that it covered multiple schools and involved notable people and organisations I considered that A7 did not apply either, and declined the speedy delete in order to keep it. I do not consider that the proposer actually has any valid reason to delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. LFaraone 00:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl Zambrano

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

Not enough reliable sources and a few news articles listed is not RS. Tyros1972 Talk 06:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Stadtlander

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

I came across this one after looking at another article and unfortunately despite the claims in this article, I wasn't able to find where this person is as notable as they would need to be in order to remain on Wikipedia. The current state of the article is different than what it originally looked like, but then I was trying pretty hard to cull any of the obituary-type prose and find some notability. Other than one or two brief mentions here and there, I can't really find where she's all that notable. She's mentioned in this link as a "leading trompe l'oeil artist", but I can find nothing else that mentions her in this light and we need more than one news article (that reads a lot like a press release) to really show that someone is actually a leading figure in something. There's a brief mention of her in a book about her stuff as far as a museum goes, but I can't tell if it was a permanent exhibition, a temporary one, or even if it's the same person at all. All I get is a brief snapshot of a page. Other than that we have the assertion of some awards, none of which I can really find a mention of outside of this page or outside of the primary source. I feel a little bad nominating both this page and the one for her grandson at the same time, but neither person seems to have any real notability here. If anyone can dig something up I'd be most obliged, but I don't really think there's notability here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot find significant coverage. I tried looking for any coverage related to the two items identified as notable and turned up nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadheeswaran_D

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

The politician has not won a public office nor has attained notability through an Award or other checks. He is holding a position in a political party but does not satisfy the notability criteria Townblight (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAs per nominator Uncletomwood (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Also, will rename: Khok Sung, Nakhon Ratchasima. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khok Sung

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

This is some sort of reference to the geography of Thailand, perhaps, but what it is exactly is unclear and unsourced. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Adli

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

I don't think this passes WP:NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.The current article is poor, giving excessive detail about his most recent arrest and focusing entirely on his troubles with the law and university authorities, without saying anything at all about what his "activism" is aimed at. However, Google News does give hits in a variety of Malaysian media outlets, including the New Straits Times, dating back to at least 2011; the article includes several of these as sources. That looks like enough for WP:GNG, to me, and shows that we're not talking about a WP:ONEEVENT, but DGG surely looked at the same evidence as I did and came to the opposite conclusion so perhaps I missed something? Dricherby (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. In 29 days, we've had four comments (including the nominator), all with different opinions as to what should be done to the article, as such, there is clearly no consensus to do anything. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Food Banking Network

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

No reliable secondary reference to assure the credibility of the article. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite with "India FoodBanking Network" as article topic – I found some sources and added them to the article, but it seems like the India FoodBanking Network is the organization that's actually notable per WP:NGO. The Delhi FoodBank is not national in scope, and doesn't seem to be nationally known. Ibadibam (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is coverage in reliable secondary sources, e.g. hindustantimes or thehindu (admitedly they both treat it as part of IFBN). Editor NorthAmerica1000 himself has kindly agreed to help me improve our coverage of hunger, and if this is kept I'll likely improve it in the next few weeks. No objection to editor Ibadibam's suggestion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Chawla

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

non notable midlevel civil servant.a similar deleted page can be looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upendra Tripathy (2nd nomination) Uncletomwood (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 11:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 11:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Healthy Vending

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

Non-notable company. The article has no reliable sources, and Google search doesn't turn up much outside of their own press releases. The article's main claim to notability appears to be that the company is endorsed by Mrs. Obama and/or the US Congress. I don't believe that is true. They may have lobbied for laws that would block competition from stale unhealthy vending machines, and they certainly applauded its passage, but there is nothing notable about a company being pleased when an act of government helps boost its market share by kneecapping its competitors. Kilopi (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added by the IP and incorporated into the text by MelanieN are substantial enough that remaining problems with the article can be resolved by adhering to them. Since WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP, this doesn't need to go another week and I've asked the relisting admin to reconsider. Kilopi (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been a number of links added which are from prestigious and well known markets. I disagree with you, and candidly believe you should reconsider. There are links from Fox Business news, CBS, News 9, Bloomberg, and many other respectable media channels, highlighting Fresh Healthy Vending. This is a very notable company. — Preceding unsignedcomment added by 108.21.102.230 (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the company is young, it has received a lot of coverage from national sources. They were cited at the article under External Links; I have converted them into inline citations and I think they clearly establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep after WP:INCITE After the inline citations added (and I just got here) it appears to fully pass WP:N with coverage from CBS, Fox Business and several local media sources, as well as the USDA. No need to trash an article that has coverage such as this. Jguy TalkDone 16:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Cox

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

Poorly sourced article and may not meet WP:ATHLETE guidelines Josh1024 (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WeWorked.com

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

Article about a web-based application. Only one independent source is available, providing minimal coverage of the subject. Fails WP:NSOFT. - MrX 20:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - MrX 20:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - MrX 20:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added second independent source to article. --Tz718 (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The PC Mag award is pretty trivial, and the coverage in that source is basically non-existent. The MakeUseOf source appears to be quite a long way from a RS. I couldn't see anything else of particular note in a Google search. Article creator appears to be an SPA here just to edit things involving the subject of the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awadh Pradesh

Withdrawn by nominator --- Redirecting to Awadh since all of the four proposed regions already exist in Wikipedia as historical regions. Thanks, Anand (talk page) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed Indian district that is unlikely to happen in the near future Thanks, Anand (talk page) 07:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wonder why I didn't think of it myself. However I will be redirecting it to Awadh since all of the four regions proposed by the old Mayawati government already exist in Wikipedia as historical regions of Uttar Pradesh. So we might as well do it for Awadh also. Thanks, Anand (talk page) 20:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Motorway (New South Wales)

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

Per page moves specified here: Talk:Pacific_Motorway_(Sydney–Newcastle)#Move_Proposal. Article now contains redundant information as Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) and Pacific Motorway (Ewingsdale–Brisbane) now exist, and a disambiguation page will be created at Pacific Motorway. All information here has been merged into the appropriate articles. Marcnut1996 (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the disambiguation page has been created. Marcnut1996 (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is general housekeeping. There was a valid, uncontested prod already on the page so there was really no need for AfD. There are two sections of road in NSW now called "Pacific Motorway", so an alternative would be to recreate the page as a disambiguation page, which might be a better idea. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - General Housekeeping. No Longer Required -- Nbound (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This was a tough call, but essentially we have 2 people wishing to delete the article and 2 people wishing to keep the article. Essentially the users wishing to delete argue there are no secondary sources, those wishing to keep argue there are. As such, I believe that there is no consensus to either keep or delete this article. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Trip

AfDs for this article:
Varsity Trip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable student society, in fact more like a statement for a student society which is no different to every other university societies, in fact a billion miles, let alone nowhere as notable to even its own rowing societies.

All sources are from its own student magazines and therefore with reliable third party sources Donnie Park (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Inexplicably, this article has survived four AfDs, none of which provided a convincing case for notability. I'll look over the sources and possibly comment on the article's merits later. ThemFromSpace 18:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it survived 3 AfDs and claims to be supported by reliable third party sources, such a shame nobody can get off their backside to improve the quality of this article nor use those sources to make it less vulnerable to future AfD. In all, I'd say more like a statement for a student society with sources coming from their own websites which dosen't make it as special as it claims to be. Donnie Park (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Donnie Park (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was also nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varsity trip by the way, so this is the 5th nomination. Reading through all the past AFD to try to understand why this thing was around, I found some good points made. This has been getting coverage since 1922, they older than the winter Olympics, this the longest-running team ski competition in the world. Their games do get coverage then and now. Dream Focus 14:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. All I could find is sporadic press coverage, usually of a trivial, tangential or routine nature, often based on press releases and promotional material provided by the association itself. Far to little to establish notability in accordance with any of our guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here are some sources not currently used in the article:
Despite all of these news items which are basically reporting the same incident from early 2011, I could find nothing in WP:Secondary sources about the early establishment of the trip, about the significance of the trip, about comparisons between the trip and the Olympics, etc. I found nothing whatsoever about the trip in books. If this article is kept it should be trimmed of all tables and history, trimmed down to the most basic statements about the sort of debauchery which made the news, and moved to a more descriptive title such as Cambridge and Oxford ski trip scandal. Me, I would prefer to see the article deleted than some silly scandal given its own article. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Students cavorting half-naked in the snow simulating sex acts and eating, gasp, yellow snow doesn't even register as a blip on my debauchometer, and surprised it even raised an eyebrow in this day and age. Must have been a very, very slow news day. Can't see how an article about students acting silly would deserve a place here on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has only two links from other articles to it, making it suffering from WP:O. I think I would vote for a weak delete, for being orphaned, and a lack of notable people for who, for example, this might have been a stepping stone to the Winter Olympics. Or organizers who became important politicians or businessmen. But maybe I am not valuing the event on its merits, and for that, relisting it again might be the best option.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew discussion. Rschen7754 07:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 3

Interstate 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No highway does not exists like Interstate 570 (although it had its AFD was deleted a year ago and deleted again), since there's no announcement , logs or construction date. Nothing but speculation. JJ98 (Talk) 06:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Also nominating for the same reason since it does not exist, although it appeared Google Maps, but nothing has been signed:

Interstate 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Interstate 66 (west) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JJ98 (Talk) 07:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 08:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deaden (1991 band)

Deaden (1991 band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nonnotable artist fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. No sources could be found to prove otherwise. Curb Chain (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. CD/tape sales figures are unimpressive. PKT(alk) 13:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Aggarwal

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

Despite the amazingly promotional tone of the biography, there doesn't seem to be sufficient notability attached. Taroaldo ✉ 05:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Beginning (Supernatural)

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

article is nearly WP:ALLPLOT, and no indication of notability of this particular episode. if you were to remove the plot, the continuity trivia section, and the cultural references trivia section, you would be left with a single episode review. Frietjes (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 23:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talkin' to me?) @ 23:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The episode is notable in the fact it gives the entire backstory as to why the plot of the series itself exists. The plot can be made much more concise but isn't the goal to eventually provide information on all the episodes of a show such as other series see How I Met Your Mother, M*A*S*H, etc. Comedian1018 (talk)

What else would need to be added for the article to stay as a standalone page? Comedian1018 (talk)

look at the ones that are good or featured articles, like Pilot or Dream a Little Dream of Me. notice how the plot section is reduced in size, and there is no continuity trivia section or cultural references trivia section. Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, which isn't the same as, say, "famous" or "important". Here, something is notable if it meets the criteria set out at the general notability guideline which is that it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (the words I've italicized there also have particular meanings; follow the link for more information). So, in particular, while providing the series backstory may make this episode important (at least, relative to other episodes of the series), it doesn't contribute to notability. Dricherby (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to Master Cleanse. I'll leave it to the masses to decide what, if anything, should be merged there. postdlf (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Burroughs

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

Insufficiently notable. Burroughs is the inventor of the "lemonade diet" which receives a lot of coverage, and Burroughs is mentioned as its creator many times too, sometimes with characterization ("quirky", "messianic", etc.). But there appears to be little or no reliable biographical coverage of any depth. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if they are notable or not. Above you suggest that the "lemonade diet" has received a lot of coverage (I've never heard of it). Doesn't this meet criterion 4? Not sure if 1-4 all have to be met, or only one. Lesion (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's up to editors to decide how the notability criteria are weighted on a case-by-case basis. In my view Burroughs as a person is not notable enough for an article, but the "lemonade diet" (aka Master Cleanse) is - maybe a solution is to have the Burroughs article redirect to Master Cleanse where he is mentioned as its inventor in the books he wrote? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then I think merge leaving redirect might be appropriate. If the content we can keep is all covered in another article, then there should be nothing much to merge, and it is basically a delete. Lesion (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irai Anbu

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

unremarkable non notable civil servant Uncletomwood (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentPlease see this [[15]]

the hindu mentioning about him doesn't make him notable,a lot of civil servants are authors,speakers and motivators but that dosen't mean that they get an article on wikipedia.I agree he is a well known person among some circles but that dosent warrant him an article. Moreover the does not meet WP:GNG.Uncletomwood (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 19:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of stars in Corona Australis. I'm working on the assumption that those wishing to delete are ambivalent to the article being redirected. If not, please come and see me on my talk page and we can discuss it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD 166348

HD 166348 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Although some Google Scholar hits do turn up for the various designations of this star, they are all purely in passing or in a large list. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am unable to find the nontrivial coverage that would be needed to pass WP:NASTRO, and I don't think being the nearest star in a particular direction (despite being not particularly near) is a strong enough claim for notability (especially since without sources this claim appears to be original research by synthesis). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of stars in Corona Australis where summary information about this star can already be found. The fact that it fails WP:NASTRO doesn't mean it should be deleted. What it means is that it shouldn't have a separate article.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, there is currently not a section for this star in that article. We would either need to create one (IMO a bad idea since we would have to do the same for every single star in every constellation) or just delete this article (my preference). StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's covered in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (specifically WP:ALLORNOTHING). With apologies for contradicting you we're not required to cover every single star in every constellation and we couldn't. Oh, sure, in theory yes: we could aim to list all the stars, or all the minor planets, or all the species of beetle, or all the mountains in Europe, or all the villages in India, in relevant lists. In practice this would take decades to do and by the time we'd finished it the information would be out of date. Wikipedia's fundamentally un-completable. (That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to try.) But per policy there are things we are required to do, and one of them is preserve appropriate content. In this case that can be done via the list.—S Marshall T/C 17:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Perusing the bibliographic links on a SIMBAD query for this star, they are all catalogs and rediscussions of collective properties of nearby stars. Interesting only as part of the herd, this fails notability tests. BSVulturis (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Jennings

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. This article was created as a first major edit of a new account on 8 June, and maybe no coincidence that this is created less than 3 months till the Australian federal election, 2013 . he is a candidate and that does not mean automatically notable, I've found a few mentions of comments made by him as a candidate, but that in itself does not establish notability. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The consensus here seems to be relatively evenly split between merge/redirect and keep. On top of that, we have a significant number of users suggesting the AfD is unbundled. As such, it's extremely unclear what the consensus is, as such I'm closing this as no consensus. I would suggest that individual articles be renominated individually so each article can be judged on its own merits. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining members of the council of grandmothers

Agnes Baker Pilgrim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Beatrice Long Visitor Holy Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bernadette Rebienot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Margaret Behan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mona Polacca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rita Long Visitor Holy Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rita Pitka Blumenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tsering Dolma Gyaltong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This group nomination constitutes the remaining membership of the International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers, which is also nominated for deletion. (Several members are already separately nominated, and two do not have articles.) The problem all around is the same: the only real sources are publications of the council itself or its sponsoring organization, or in some instances other self-published sources. There is a decided lack of real third party sourcing excepting a very few fugitive references. I will admit that I haven't read each article in great detail, and that a few may well have some notability independent of membership in this group; if they be identified I will split them out into separate nominations or remove them entirely. But it seems unnecessary to subject everyone to a blow-by-blow deletion of each. Mangoe (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • generally delete/merge all, unbundle agnes. - but Rita may be worth pulling out separately, per the "Acclaim in Alaska" section. Tsering may also be more sourcable due to the actions re Tibet, and the relation to the Dalai lama. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally delete all - Per noms reasonings, although I would not be opposed to Gaijin42s exceptions in the above comment if the reliable sources they mention for Tsering Dolma Gyaltong and Rita Pitka Blumenstein could be found. Heiro 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. For Tsering Dolma Gyaltong and Rita Pitka Blumenstein, there appears to be some evidence that could arguably be considered evidence of notability, but not nearly enough. No evidence at all for the rest. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Lack of signficant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. My own Google searches turned up nothing promising for any of them. Even in the case of Tsering Dolma Gyaltong and Rita Pitka Blumenstein, there is insufficient substantial coverage to make a credible claim of notability, or to write a coherent article on. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding material about Margaret Behan in Indian Country Today and an interview with her in AARP International, using the Ixquick search engine, which is less focused on "personalization" of search results. Djembayz (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: y'all serious?
We have discussed that book on the group AFD, it is a collection of essays BY the group, with very little content written ABOUT the group. It certainly is not an independent source. The news articles are either not reliable, self published, or brief mentions saying "They showed up at such and such a conference, tickets are $5 at the door. " Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the book preview it looks as though at least the first half of the book is biographies written by Schaefer. I understand that the book is sympathetic to the group, but I don't think that means it's not independent. groupuscule (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a great honor to work closely with the International Council of Thirteen Indigenous Grandmothers in crafting this book. [....] I have done my best to express what I have heard and learned from the Grandmothers, but my ability to act as a bridge or translator to a wider audience is, to a certain extent, hindered by the limits of my own understanding and experience. [....] Finally, though my name appears on the cover of this book, the words of wisdom expressed within it are not mine, and I do not lay claim to them.

  • Keep for case by case AfDs. Original article notable enough per sources and [ this news.google.archive search which can be used to beef up the refs. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. A group nomination of all of these elders seems ill-conceived to me and goes against WP:BUNDLE, which says that "an article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled". While they are each members of the International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers, they are too loosely related to be bundled, having come from different communities from around the world and having separate accomplishments which distinguish them. While a couple of these women *may* have borderline notability, they deserve consideration on a case by case basis. The book Grandmothers Counsel the World: Women Elders Offer Their Vision for Our Planet contains detailed biographies of each of these women, which in itself imparts enough notability to pass WP:BIO. News archive searches also bring up more sources for each of these individuals, further establishing notability. Gobōnobō + c 21:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. Seems we learn a new and sensible policy every day. (To make up for silly ones learn about once a week or so.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These articles have been adequately cited to establish notability of these individuals. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
  • Unbundle per WP:BUNDLE. These are all very different women from different parts of the world with completely different achievements and levels of notability. I see no reason they should be bundled for deletion just because they all belong to a borderline-notable group. Also I don't believe that a reference being "fugitive" disqualifies it from being reliable. Kaldari (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles were created at the same time, by the same editor, using the same sources, which are all discussing them in the context of the group. Further, the content for many of the articles was identical with the bulk of paragraphs copied exactly between them. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unbundling, In my opinion, this clearly meets our bundling criteria. And they all have the same levels of notability (none) and remarkably similar achievements (tribal spiritual leader, member of the council of grandmothers). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can show some specific evidence that one of the nominated articles could be defended in its own right, I would unbundle that one. But since they all rely on essentially the same single source, I see no reason to go through this multiple times. Mangoe (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's start with the first one on the list. Agnes Baker Pilgrim is notable for:
  • Being the Chairperson of the International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers
  • Restoring the Sacred Salmon Ceremony to the Takelma tribe
  • Founding the Konanway Nika Tillicum Youth Academy
  • Being a spiritual elder and the oldest member of the Takelma tribe
  • Being featured in a bronze statue in downtown Ashland, Oregon
None of these achievements are shared by any of the other women. She is discussed in a book and an academic journal, as well as several "fugitive" sources, such as newspapers and online journals/websites. Clearly she would pass WP:N if she were not bundled. I haven't looked at any of the other articles in depth, but this one does not give me confidence that the bundling is appropriate. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not mean "has accomplishments". It means being covered in independent 3rd party reliable non self published sources. what sources do you see (that are not in the context of the 13, only covering Agnes) that meet that criteria, and would support unbundling? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 3rd party reliable non-self-published sources are Australian Humanities Review (academic journal), Ashland Daily Tidings (local newspaper), and the biography from Schaefer's book. Kaldari (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldari, please review Wikipedia:Notability (people). Those are the criteria we are using. BTW, there is no need to put a message on my talk page saying that you replied to a post of mine. Wikipedia already has an automated system that notifies me when that happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Sounds like she passes to me. Your insistence that her notability is "none" is disingenuous. If her notability where "none" I don't think they would have built a bronze statue of her. Kaldari (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a bit of searching and the Mail Tribune, a print newspaper, has 3 articles about Agnes Baker Pilgrim[16][17][18]. If you add articles that mention her, it goes up to dozens. Please explain how these sources and the ones I've already mentioned do not meet either WP:BIO or WP:N, either of which are applicable. Kaldari (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With these sources, I think unbundle agnes is appropriate. I reserve a hypothetical !vote if she is separately nominated later. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of independent third party sourcing. Do not object to a merge into a single article; truly notable bios can be broken out as the need arises. Gamaliel (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to closing admin - The hypothetical merge target AFD was just closed as no consensus, so remains a valid merge target. All 3 of the other individual member articles AFD which were nominated outside this bundle, were closed with a result of delete. [19] [20] [21] Gaijin42 (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[[User:Til Eulenspiegel, For the sake of argument, I will temporarily agree with you that the group is notable. Is it notable enough, and is there enough unique information on each participant, to support 14 articles? It seems clear to me that if the group does pass GNG (or some other notability standard), it is a borderline case, and all of the information on EVERY participant, can easily be put into a single article, with a section for each participant. At most there is a handful of sentences that can be uniquely written about each memer. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that you are referring to the "Establishment of notability" section of WP:BIAS, but it appears to me that you are misusing that essay. Nowhere does it say that we are to ignore Wikipedia:Notability and just include the page anyway. It does say that we should make a special effort to find evidence of notability in the regions and languages of each of the grandmothers, and I certainly had WP:BIAS in mind when I searched and failed to find evidence that any of the grandmothers meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Do you have a specific non-English or regional source that you think we have overlooked? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just took the first person in the list and found multiple 3rd party reliable independent non-self-published sources about her (see comments above). I didn't use any special databases or library searches, just Google. If this is someone that you tried especially hard to find sources for and determined that she had no notability whatsoever, I'm not sure how we can trust your claims that you have adequately vetted the entire list. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you a placing an undue burden of WP:BEFORE. 14 articles, all created by the same person, at the same time, using the same very weak sources, written with much identical non-encyclopedic content (try looking back a few revisions before they were cleaned up!) where 3 of the 14 ended up with an AFD result of delete. The burden of proof shifts to the keepers in my opinion. You may have met that burden (at least to unbundle, possibly to keep) in the case of Agnes, but one must take the entire set of circumstances and history of the articles into account when making a judgement about other editor's actions. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you're largely correct about the history of the articles. However, I would argue that WP:BIAS suggests we should be conservative about applying WP:BUNDLE here. Leaders of indigenous communities are not going to be well represented on the internet. If it looks like any of these women may have notability outside of the council, we should split them off to get a fair hearing on their own merits. It looks like a few people have already mentioned Rita Pitka Blumenstein and Tsering Dolma Gyaltong. I would add Agnes Baker Pilgrim and possibly Mona Polacca. Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above, considering the context of the 14 articles, all created at the same time, by the same person, using the same sources, and with 90% the same content, where 3 of the person articles were nominated individually and came back with a result of delete, WP:BUNDLE was an entirely appropriate starting position for the remaining articles. That evidence comes to light retroactively indicating that some individual members may be notable and should be broken out is not evidence that any bad faith action was taken by the original nominator. Nobody is saying they are not notable BECAUSE they are in this group. They are saying that they are non notable IN SPITE of being in this group, because the group is not notable, and the bulk of the sources discussing the group or the individuals are not reliable, and in general not independent. (With exceptions as subsequently pointed out for Agnes etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:BUNDLE. It says "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately". The nomination did not do this. The nomination said "I will admit that I haven't read each article in great detail, and that a few may well have some notability independent of membership in this group". The nominator was required to see if any article could stand on its own merits before including it here. This nomination was improper. I am also concerned people may have been misled into thinking the book was self-published when I see no evidence that it was. I accept it is reasonably arguable that it may lack editorial independence but that is a subtler point and one that requires careful, individual consideration. The nomination is shaming on Wikipedia.Thincat (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying the book is self published. The book however is not independent, as the vast majority of it is the words of the subjects themselves, and the author explicitly states that she was serving as a translator and vessel for their ideas. Similarly, the two documentaries, were both created by the Center for Sacred Studies, the parent organization of the 13 grandmothers. (The 13 grandmothers were in fact brought together as part of the creation of the first documentary). The other major sources for the articles (as written at the time of nomination) were self published podcasts, which consisted of primary source interviews with the subjects. However, all of that is moot as the 13 grandmothers article survived its AFD as no consensus. The only question is are the 13 members sufficiently independantly notable separate of the 13 grandmothers to warrant individual rticles, vs having the few BLP/wiki/sourcable statements about them included in the grandmother's article. Even if you come to the conclusion that they are notable, the vast majority of that notability is directly attributed to the 13 grandmothers effort, and the individual articles will almost surely never be more than stubs. redirection and merges are the obvious solution. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination here gave more than a nudge and wink about the book being self-published: "the only real sources are publications of the council itself or its sponsoring organization, or in some instances other self-published sources". At the AFD for International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers the nominator said "Non notable group, self declared group, all references re either dead links, or blogs (excepting one catholic reporter ref), or self published items by the group".[22] This was when the article looked like this and a momentary glance would have shown the book was a major reference. I am affronted by this nomination. Thincat (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You imply that the nominators were not aware of, or did not take into account the book , which is patently false, it has been discussed extensively in the talk pages, and the other deletion discussions. Yes the book was a major reference, one which is mostly a primary source, and completely fails the notability/reliability requirements
    • Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
    • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.
      • "It has been a great honor to work closely with the International Council of Thirteen Indigenous Grandmothers in crafting this book. [....] I have done my best to express what I have heard and learned from the Grandmothers, but my ability to act as a bridge or translator to a wider audience is, to a certain extent, hindered by the limits of my own understanding and experience. [....] Finally, though my name appears on the cover of this book, the words of wisdom expressed within it are not mine, and I do not lay claim to them.
    • "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.",
      • Every major employee of the publisher of this book is from the same family,
      • the book is presenting as fact
        • the 13 grandmothers are fulfilling ancient prophecies.
        • the imbalance of male and female energies could cause the destruction of ...the Earth

As the primary point of contention appears to be the notability or not of these individuals, separate from the group, I have posted notice of this AFD to the notability noticeboard. Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#13_grandmothers_AFD Gaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book is both a primary and a secondary source. The book consists of two sections: biographies of the women, and sections written by the grandmothers themselves. The biographies of the women were written by Carol Schaefer and qualify as independent 3rd party coverage. The sections written by the grandmothers do not. The reliability of the book is debatable, but disqualifying the entire book because it includes primary source material doesn't make sense. Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The women inflame the air with sage ...
Sisters Rita and Beatrice Long Visitor Holy Dance
invoke an end to Star Wars, 3rd grade gangs, bedroom rape
Chant of babies from un-united states of Fallujah, Kabul,
Phoenix, Katmandu. The grandmothers share

words their elders didn’t — suicide, diabetes, radioactive
Seek Windows and webs that suspend age, that
mid-wife old ladies into shamans, laps into lap-tops
One grandma teaching another how mushrooms absorb
petroleum spills, how dollars green into trees, roots
detox crystal meth ... [1]

  1. ^ Markover, Fran (2008-11-19). "First Place Poetry: "The Grandmas"". IC View - The Magazine of Ithaca College. Retrieved 2013-06-17.
The documentary may or may not be high quality, but as it was produced BY the same organization that the 13 grandmothers is a part of , it is irrelevant as to showing notability. An article written by the subject again, gives no show of notability. The poem is from a local Ithica woman, shown on a minor college website. In any case, the poem is in reference to the 13 grandmothers, so is evidence of notability for the main article, and not for the 11 individual people. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: These individuals are clearly WP:NOTABLE. They are not simply mythic, they are REAL people who have significant accomplishments. Articles on indigenous people in general have many of these sourcing issues, as the "invisibility" problem faced by native people is an ongoing issue to begin with, but in light of historical significance and leadership, they clearly meet the standard far better than some guy who played professional cricket for one season in Sri Lanka of someplace. Montanabw(talk) 17:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you regarding one season cricketers. But that is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I'd be happy to work with you to change the sports notability criteria to get rid of them! Indigenous people have sourcing problems, so does every high school garage band. Notability = sourcing. If there is a sourcing problem, there is by definition an notability problem. Yes, this is a form pf WP:BIAS - we are biased against people that don't have reliable sources talking about them. Collectively the 13 grandmothers group may have notability. What "in depth" sources are discussing these individuals, outside of the context of their membership in the 13? Notability is not inherited. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the WP:BIAS viewpoint's been noticed: "Opening up Wikipedia to include indigenous knowledge in its articles would likely be frowned upon by many, including the company and its thousands of contributors and editors worldwide." (from the Alaska Dispatch, How Wikipedia can help preserve indigenous knowledge from Far North). Is this really who we want to be as a group? Djembayz (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also clearly explained at WP:INHERITORG: "An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership." - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and unbundle. Bundling the AfD suggests systemic bias, as Til Eulenspiegel notes above. The nominator admits to not having read all the articles carefully, and acknowledges that some of these individuals may have independent notability. So allow me to echo that "y'all serious?" above. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Agree. Systemic bias? The proposal to delete all these biographies as a bundle began on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. A group of women that sponsors an event to commemorate Northern Cheyenne Exodus doesn't belong on a "Fringe theory noticeboard". An invitation to write in the Washington Post religion section is dismissed as self publishing rather than an honor, the highly-ranked small college that awards a poetry prize on the topic is dismissed as "minor," the discussion itself is never posted at WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America, the editor who brings up the discussion at WP Systemic Bias and the Gender Gap mailing list gets hauled into ANI, and finally the reliable sourcing problems for indigenous peoples are compared to the sourcing problems of garage bands. Yikes.
Yes, some of these biographies should probably be rolled into the main article, but that's not what was proposed here. What's at issue in the proposal as written is thumbs up or down on the batch.Djembayz (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions. Also, how again is getting a guest column in Washington Post, something that might understandably be taken a sign of some notability, being spun here as a sign of non-notability? I must be missing something along the way. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article written by a member of the 13 is a sign of notability about the 13? While certainly one could personally infer notability by being chosen to do the guest article, it is directly contradicted by our notability policy "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyone above arguing that every person bundled here is notable? If so, I overlooked it. This is precisely why several of us are asking for the AfD to be unbundled. At least two of these figures seem to merit examination for independent notability. It's bizarre logic to say that because some members of the bundle are non-notable, they all are, regardless of the evidence produced so far. People who write become notable through their publications; that is different from using their own writings as sources about themselves. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be under the impression that bundling somehow constrains the closing administrator to "bundle" the result in some way. It does not. The closing administrator can look at the discussion and close with something like this:
Result:
  • No evidence of notably for Dopey and sleepy: Delete.
  • Sleepy, Grumpy, and Doc are clearly notable; Keep with prejudice (meaning that immediate re-listing is prohibited).
  • No consensus on Bashful, Happy and Sneezy; Keep without prejudice (meaning they can can be but are not required to be immediately nominated for deletion separately)."
Bundling simply means that we are discussing them all at once because they are closely related. The closing administrator is expected to read all comments and use his brain when writing up the result / closing comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but my exasperation was with comments implying that the non-notability of most members of the group was somehow transferrable to others who may merit individual consideration. That's why I have perhaps framed my view injudiciously. It does seem to me that the size of the group AfD unnecessarily fragments and confuses discussion threads for the members who may have independent notability. I don't see the bundling as more efficient. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common misconception to think that something like that matters. It does not. If this was like an election, then someone who posts a bogus argument might sway undecided voters, and you would have reason to be exasperated. Instead, this is like an experienced judge listening to testimony and giving a ruling. Bogus arguments will be ignored, as will responses to bogus arguments. The only thing that matters is whether one or more of the 14 numbered items at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion apply. Let's say I post the following: "All of the seven Dwarfs are non-notable because they are short". All you have to do is point out that none of the 14 reasons for deletion involves height. No need to post anything beyond that. If I say "I looked, and cannot find evidence of notability for any of them", a correct response might be "what about Doc? He has a Nobel Prize in homeopathy[86] and is the king of Elbonia." of course I could counter with "Your citation #86 is to Dwarfs Quarterly, published by D. Dwarf with S. White as the executive editor. And it has exactly seven paid subscribers, all at the same mailing address." The point here is that we would both be talking about #8 on the list of reasons for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't anything the least bit genuinely "logical" about your frequent analogies toward Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, something that has zero bearing on what we are really discussing. All you are doing with this type of clearly opinionated rhetoric, and argument by silly analogies, is letting readers know from what tremendous distance your personal point of view is coming, and this does help to explain why your personal biases make it so hard for you to acknowledge the possibility of other points of view on this beside your own - when it comes to what you patronistically want to prevent any wikipedia reader from being able to learn about on wikipedia, it seems your own personal biases are king here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You, know, if you could switch off the automatic rant-reflex you might find that what Guy is saying is not inconsistent with your aspirations. Paul B (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are even results for "Indigenous grandmothers" that show up on Google Scholar. It says Mona Polacca is cited in Ecologist 2008 by Nicola Graydon. There is a book Living Indigenous Leadership: Native Narratives on Building Strong Communities by Carolyn Kenny, UBC Press, academically publishing information about the 13 Indigenous Grandmothers in chapter 6. When the bar keeps magically getting raised higher than the highest thing found, it's not a good sign, because nothing then would ever be high enough to satisfy someone who's already made up their mind to do away with it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbundle It's a logical fallacy to say that all of these articles are equally notable/non-notable (not that anyone's saying that explicitly, but it's certainly implied by bundling them together). Each article should be decided by its own merits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbundle. Some may be borderline notable, like Agnes "water can hear" Pilgrim, others palpably are not (Beatrice Long Visitor Holy Dance seems to have driven a truck and "hosted a workshop for girls on how to properly cut buffalo meat and dry it". Awesome.) We shouldn't keep Beatrice because she's bundled with the others, and we shouldn't lose others 'cos they're bundled with Beatrice. I'm unconvinced by Guy's argument that some Solomonic Judge can usefully sort through this debate to sort the sheep from the goats in each individual case. @Til. I see no evidence that a bar is being raised especially high for these people. I think the 13 grandmothers are notable, but that does not mean that each gran deserves her own article. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found an academic reference to Beatrice being cited for her notability also: Indigenous-Centered Pedagogies: Strategies for Teaching Native American Literature and Culture by Annette Portillo, [23] in Vol 42, No 1 (2013) Winter/Spring 2013, of the CEA Forum journal published by the College English Association. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the content referring to her is "For example, while teaching at a liberal arts college in Ohio, I worked with a Native student organization that invited several speakers to campus. The first was Beatrice Long Visitor Holy Dance, a member of ‘The International Council of the 13 Indigenous Grandmothers from the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, who spoke about the “Past, Present and Future of Lakota Culture." Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And according to you, this reference is somehow illegitimate because ___...? (fill in the blank) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not illegitimate per-se, but "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]" and pointing out that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Gaijin42 (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Til, where on earth do you get the idea that one passing reference to a person in a source means that they deserve to have an article on Wikipedia? I could find many more references to myself and possibly to my next door neighbour. Paul B (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of the notability rules seems to be to prevent articles from being written about a "nobody". The reference I have shared is good rational evidence that this person is indeed a "somebody", and not a "nobody". But the letter of the laws is being used to make it flexible and a matter of the assessment of some editors to say "No, that doesn't count, she is still a nobody anyway, because we wrote the rules". So I see the letter of the rules being used for a different purpose than the spirit of the rules here. I would like to add my voice explicitly to those who have said this entire mess of an "AfD" should be unbundled and started over on a case by case basis. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are degrees of "somebodyness". There are many many millions of people who have given talks at conferences, for example. They do not deserve to have their own articles because of that. It's got nothing to do with who "wrote the rules". The rules were not written by some clique. Paul B (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as notable strike double vote. I've been sitting back on this discussion, but I am very disturbed that while a young male footballplayer from East Bumf--k who played soccer for a season before blowing out his knees can be deemed notable on WP, a group of highly respected women of color and elders to boot are deemed "nobodies." This is troublesome and reflects a systemic bias problem on wikipedia. Many, many Native American sources are oral in nature and the written materials are often done as something of an afterthought by younger and more tech-savvy tribal members who are neither scholars nor journalists. These articles all need to be kept. End of story. Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[note]: the above editor, Montanabw, has already recorded a "keep" vote/opinion above (date stamped 17:08, 17 June 2013). Paul B (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, Til Eulenspiegel and Montanabw, how can we be sure if they are "highly respected women of color and elders to boot" if the sources aren't reliable?24.22.129.215 (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the problem with yours and Til's argument. They are not being sidelined in some way because they are "women of color", they are being promoted for that very reason. In some cases it seems to be their only claim to significance. What would be the chances that my "highly respected" grandmother should get on a council? None. Because no-one has invented an International Council of Welsh Grandmothers expounding the "wisdom" of inherited Welsh rural lore. One could just as easily create a Council of Jewish Grandmothers made of elderly women who just happen to be Jewish and grandmothers, and are "respected" "wisdom keepers" of the Jewish people. If they happened to be grandmothers from, say, a Norwegian Dakotan farming community they would never have been picked to join this council would they? In many cases these seem to be quite ordinary people whose sole claim to be distinguished from the millions of other respected grandmothers in the world is that they happen to come from particular communities, ones that have been granted access to Great Truths of Eternal Wisdom in the imagination of New Age culture. Of course none of that would matter if they had achieved notability through it. Many people achieve fame and status for dubious reasons, including perhaps footballers from East Bumf--k. But there is no reason to believe many of these people have achieved it. Paul B (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is really the core of the problem with the whole thing. This council is the creation of one white upper middle woman and is being promoted through her efforts and that of the white upper middle author of the book, which was written in apparent collaboration with the council. There may be some slight possibility of some independent notability of one or two of the members (Agnes Pilgrim is the only one I'm getting the least positive impression for), but everything else seems to arise out of the publicity efforts of the white women backing this group. I get no sense that anyone out of this very small circle would care about them if the organization were not being pushed upon them. That may reflect systematic bias, but it also reflects the failure of the creators of the group to catch the fancy of the sort of people who are ordinarily interested in this sort of thing. In no small degree, the book in particular represents the systematic bias of the sort of person who thinks that white 1st world men are really out of touch with Ultimate Reality and the Right Ways of the World. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do no attach arguments to me that I never made, thank you. I haver never said one word about the race of any of these women and I have a hard time understanding how such an argument could possibly be relevant to their notability or non-notability. I am arguing "Systemic Bias", that is, "Article X isn't notable to me in my little world, therefore it should not be notable for anyone else either, and any mentions it has received in press are likewise not notable to me, so anyone else to whom this subject may seem notable is just out of luck and will have to get more detailed info on it elsewhere, not on wikipedia where it's not welcome, because I said so." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, Til Eulenspiegel, is that the sources aren't reliable. I don't mean that in a game-internal sense, I mean literally unreliable, as in filled with demonstrably false claims about aboriginal cultures and about the members themselves. Look closely. Some of these people are not who they are claimed to be.24.22.129.215 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what are we deciding here? Whether they are really who they claim to be, or whether they meet GNG? They can be totally not who they claim to be at all, and yet still meet notability guidelines. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, 24.22.129.215, given Heisenberg's uncertainty principle we can't be totally sure of anything. However, in some traditional cultures, people past a certain age who are attempting to exert leadership by example, dedicating themselves to community work, and leading prayers, are generally respected as having assumed the "elder" role. And again, in some cultures, it's considered polite to treat a person claimed to be making an attempt at the "elder" role as a venerable and respected individual-- i.e. "inherently notable." Observing the custom of "that's a respected elder" can improve behaviors on all sides, and with luck, prevent us from growing up to be a grouchy, nasty, complaining and cantankerous old person ourself someday. In some cultures we give the older ladies holding prayer meetings respect even if they aren't elders on their tribal councils, trained medicine people, etc. just because that's what you do around older people, no matter how difficult they may be.
However, as the comments here have pointed out, different groups and cultures may approach the question of the cultural and religious role of "elders" in different ways. Clearly the comment, "But these are elders!" may not make much sense to urban computer enthusiasts who have never gotten to know a traditional Native American elder in person. It's probably time for those who understand Wikipedia's policies to craft some new language regarding reliable sources for indigenous people, especially for peoples with oral cultures and traditions.
Lacking time, patience, and wikilawyering expertise necessary to to shepherd this proposed policy change through our inscrutable processes, one (hopefully final) thought:
If our rules mean Wikipedia omits mention of traditional elders and the activities of New Age white ladies as not notable, I guess we'll just have to take consolation in the fact that our encyclopedia remains a great place to answer any questions we may have about more down-to-earth topics like Flying Spaghetti Monster and ultimate reality (a concept invented by white guys, who knew? :) (????) Djembayz (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
“It's probably time for those who understand Wikipedia's policies to craft some new language regarding reliable sources for indigenous people, especially for peoples with oral cultures and traditions.”
Good news, Djembayz: there is actually a whole field dedicated to documenting and understanding native cultures, including mythologies and folklore.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not state that we can't be certain of anything. Perhaps we should stop learning physics from Shambhala press.24.22.129.215 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (with redirects) — since the parent article exists, it makes sense to incorporate whatever good content there is into it as recommended by WP:NOPAGE, yielding a coherent standalone article with contextualized content, rather than the handful of stubby and AfD-attracting ones we have currently. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as Djembayz appears to be the most senior Wikimedian present, it seems appropriate to highlight this edit:
“On the 17th of March 1959, the day that the Dalai Lama began his escape from the Norbulingka|Norbulingka Palace, The Tibetan Women’s Association, of which Tsering was a Founding Member carried out a street demonstration with 500 of its members. Due to this, Tsering is said to have been 'instrumental' in creating the diversion to get Dalai Lama out of Tibet in 1959. Tsering is also the sister of the Dalai Lama."
Every single claim in that paragraph is false. She was not a founder of the TIbetan Women's association, she did not help get the Dalai Lama out of Tibet, and she is not the Dalai Lama's sister. This is what happens when you are credulous and believe what you read in unreliable sources. As an officer of a Wikimedia chapter, I wish I could say that I expect better from you. You should take some responsibility and apologize to the readers whom you've misled.24.22.129.215 (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with your assertions, but how do you know they are false? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The real Tsering Dolma died in 1964.[24][25][26]24.22.129.215 (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And even supposing they are false, again, are we here at afd to make a determination of "The Truth", or to determine if the subjects have any kind of notability? Lots of people who made demonstrably false claims, have turned out to be notable anyway, at least enough for an article. Gaumata allegedly claimed to be someone he wasn't, for instance, but it doesn't diminish his notability. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice towards recreation when the relevant guidelines are met. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Lopez

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

PROD contested for this reason – Consensus has been in the past that a player making an appearance for a fully pro side in a competitive game meets the spirit (if not the letter of the law) of WP:NFOOTY regardless of the opposition (i.e. playing non-fully pro sides in cup games). That is not true. In order for a player to meet WP:NFOOTBALL by making a competitive cup appearance, both clubs have to be fully pro. Lopez's cup appearance came against a PDL club, which is not fully pro. Therefore he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd be interested to see where the "consensus" the PROD contestor mentions has come from, because as far as as I was aware it was the opposite! Regardless, consensus changes, and I do not think playing in a lowly cup game meets WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly, the article fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 08:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to what the nominator claims, past consensus was that players making an appearance in a cup game for a fully-professional side meet the spirit, if not the letter of WP:FOOTYN - the status of the opposition is irrelevant. See Egghead06's comment in this AfD ("precedent seems to have been set long ago for an appearance in the FA/League Cup or even the Football League trophy to make a player notable when appearing for a fully pro team") and several of the comments on this AfD (e.g. "a first-team match for a FL team is enough, regardless of who it's against"). Number 57 08:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those AFDs are from 3/4 years ago, I'm positive there are some more recent AFDs with a different outcome! But as I've stated above, consensus can change, and the fact that this article fails WP:GNG is a more important consideration. GiantSnowman 08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The criteria for cup appearances is debatable when 20 minutes in the early rounds of a minor tournament is the only claim to fame for the less successful Scott Sinclair, who then disappears into non-league obscurity. Walls of Jericho (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per nomination, WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. One brief cup appearance is not enough, especially as it wasn't against a fully-professional side. Given that this occurred very recently, however, I believe userfying the article is the best answer, as it may well be that Mr. Lopez is notable soon. (Also, Jericho, I AfDed the article you linked to there.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Lopez has been away from his MLS team because he's part of the United States roster that will play in the upcoming U-20 World Cup. That alone will not qualify him under WP:NFOOTBALL, but it is also the only thing that has prevented him from either playing for Sporting KC or going on loan to a professional team, which would qualify him. It's a page that is going to be created sooner rather than later, so I would suggest userfying it. Davehogg (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy - Unfortunately this subject is not notable yet, but will much likely be in not long time. If the article-creator it should be userfied, or it can be recreated by an admin once it meets WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The page is already userfyed technically by me (see User:ArsenalFan700/Mikey Lopez). If you look at my userfyed page and this page then you will see that it is almost a direct copy with some changes. I can only assume that this was a direct copy and paste job with revisions. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get how it counts as a userfy if you just create a user page when the debate is still in progress. – Michael (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What ArsenalFan700 (talk · contribs) means is that their 'user page' was actually created before this article was created by a seperate user, and it was more-than-likely copy & pasted by the latter. GiantSnowman 10:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_June_14&oldid=559895649"