Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 5

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bmusician (talk | contribs) at 03:52, 5 February 2013 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with surname Jones). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 4 February 6 February >

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 no consensus, default to keep. My reading of the debate below is that every attempt to invoke policy in the debate, whichever way the policy points, has been refuted. There is a split vote, and I can't see this discussion getting unstuck anytime soon, so I'm closing this as NC. Deryck C. 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with surname Jones

List of people with surname 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)

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob and other precedents listed there, there is a consensus that lists of people sharing name are not useful when there are very many notable people with that name. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. Is there a precedent for deleting a list of people with the same surname, on the "list too long" theory or otherwise? Whatever one may think of the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob, I would anticipate (and maybe agree with) the argument that a surname-based list is potentially more helpful to navigation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a slight difference between lists of people that share a common forename and one that shares a common surname. Especially given that Jones is one of the most common Welsh surnames out there. This list is an extension of the Jones (surname) page. Most surname pages are in a sense disambiguation pages, and list a number of notable people who share that name. So if anything this page should be Merged with it. Funny Pika! 22:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, the page looks far too long to merge together. Looking through this category Category:Lists of people sharing a surname there's quite a few lists of surnames. Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason for inclusion, I'd still say the list should be kept in some form like Arxiloxos states - as a means of searching for articles on people named Jones. Possibly by breaking down each section into separate pages based on occupation?
Previous attempts at consensus is listed here: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. Funny Pika! 23:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the page is useful, for example someone looking for a singer called Jones but not sure of the first name. When pages get too long they need to be broken up, which is presumably why it got split off from Jones (surname). It is over 500 lines long already, which is probably unmanageable for someone trying to navigate it on a mobile phone. I would oppose deletion but splitting it into different categories as FunnyPika suggested is the best solution I can think of. Jll (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would merge the "See also" section (listing Alan Jones (disambiguation) etc) back into Jones (surname), but as for the biography articles, I have added a link for All pages including "Jones" in the title and IMHO that is enough.
    • If I wanted to look for a singer named Jones, without this list, I would simply search Wikipedia for singer jones; this first brings up Joneses that have "(singer)" in the page name, then redirects, and after those it shows others that have the word "singer" in the article.
    • Wikipedia has a policy page which says Wikipedia is not a directory. As a matter of policy I think this page should go. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can have a reasonable discussion about whether this page is useful and appropriate in its current form, but to haul out the "policy" nuclear option to attack something like this seems incorrect. If WP:NOTDIR really prohibited the creation of navigational disambiguation pages intended to help readers sort through existing articles, then it's WP:NOTDIR that would need changing, not this page. But that's not what the policy is about. As far as the suggestion that using the search engine is enough: Look at the 18,142 results you get[1]. The search engine spits them out titles first, yes, but otherwise in more or less random order; not to mention, of course, that it won't distinguish between first and last names, and (except for the rare articles that actually have "singer" in the title) it won't distinguish between articles that are about a singer and those where the word happens to be used somewhere in the article, and it presumably won't identify articles that use a different word like "musician" instead of singer. My own experience is that the Wikipedia search engine is often not very helpful for working through larger batches of results; Google may be better, but why, exactly, do we need to get rid of a proper disambiguation page just because it's big? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • But it is not a (proper) disambiguation page; see MOS:DABNAME. It is clearly a directory.
        • Moreover, it is a very incomplete directory, and the potential contents are so large that I think it would be unmanageable to try to finish it. Special:Search/intitle:Jones gives over 4,300 pages. Doing the same search for jones singer and jones musician gives 24 + 43 = 67 pages, but only 12 of those 67 are currently in the 50 or so currently listed under Music.
        • If people want to keep directories like this, then start a discussion at WP:NOT. Meanwhile, WP:ILIKEIT is not a good argument. The task of the participants at AfD, especially the person who closes, is to implement Wikipedia policy. If we delete this and later on the policy does get changed, the page could always be undeleted and then split, expanded or otherwise improved. However, it seems to me that WP:NOTDIR is a clear and strong line in WP policy. – Fayenatic London 14:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be a directory, but as are most lists that Wikipedia encompasses. For me, inappropriate directories in Wikipedia are those that just list schedules or point to an external link (List of breweries in South Carolina). Here the list is pointing to a page on Wikipedia and could help users find articles on people named Jones.
WP:NOTFINISHED is an equally poor argument. Most pages on Wikipedia are unfinished, but that does not mean we should delete every unfinished page. Yes, the list is extremely large and borderline indiscriminate. Yet I don't understand why your suggestion that it could be "split, expanded or otherwise improved" cannot be done prior to deletion rather than after, as per WP:NCLL. Funny Pika! 16:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree about List of breweries in South Carolina, as none of the contents have Wikipedia articles, so I have proposed it for deletion.
My argument about this Jones list is that it should only be kept at all if Wikipedia policy is changed. Although I sometimes work myself on a page during an AfD to see if it can be rescued, I would not encourage editors to do extensive work on a page which I believe does not belong here at all under the present framework. WP:NCLL is about breaking up pages that are justifiable and should be useful when complete; I do not believe those apply here. – Fayenatic London 17:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well something useful happened today -- another editor has rescued that list of breweries! The whole list is now supported with an external citation. – Fayenatic London 17:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is well structured so that the contents index guides the reader well. There may be a better way of doing this but, per WP:PRESERVE, we should keep the blue link and edit history as a foundation. Deletion would just be disruption. Warden (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PRESERVE is a good one, and I normally give it a lot of weight. However, because this is (i) so incomplete and (ii) practically impossible to complete and maintain, I do not think it is desirable to encourage further work on it. – Fayenatic London 14:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's part of the problem: it consists of the most famous people and some editors' favourites. If it was complete, it would list about 4,000 existing articles. See the stats I added earlier today: only 12 of 67 pages that include Jones as well as either singer or musician in their page name are listed.
  • Lists are not required to be exhaustive and complete. That's why we have the template {{dynamic list}} which states "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness.". Lists such as list of numbers are provably infinite. Lists such as list of rivers tail off into inummerable minor streams and creeks. It is quite normal, natural and expected that we should concentrate upon the more famous cases. Warden (talk) 07:46, 6 February 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, →Bmusician 03:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NLIST; "Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group." - we're gonna need proof that everyone named "John" is equally reliable per sourcing in order to attest they belong as a member of the list. So solly Ren99 wha? 05:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — that is not a problem, just a matter of work through drawing over a citation from each of the articles supporting the person being so named ... assuming that a biographical article actually has a citation supporting the person's name in association with the identity of the person being described. I would be interested to know if you have examples where this assumption is incorrect; such examples should be deleted ASAP, I would think. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Jones. To have such a list would be an indiscriminate collection of people who just happen to share the same, very common, surname.  Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -looking at Wikipedia is not a directory it states "...there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic" and clearly none of the folks in this list are famous because of their surname. I'm not seeing any rationales for keeping being presented other than I like it. J04n(talk page) 20:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its use as a navigational page was presented as a valid argument. As was the statement: long lists are indiscriminate directories. The proposal is for users who want to search for people based on a surname and an occupation to be able to find a list that points to an article for that person. The searchbox in this case would be more indiscriminate, displaying a random list of people named foo in no particular order. The article is possibly salvageable if split, so I believe there's a format problem here rather than a content one.
In reference to WP:NLIST, I don't think anyone here is debating whether foo belongs in said list. If you really want to go down that route you'd just have to prove WP:V (or WP:N), something all biographical articles should meet. WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue in reference to whether people named Jones should be included in lists of Joneses. Funny Pika! 00:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I almost presented a "keep" argument, saying that we should ignore the letter of the rules here, and that this list is inherently useful. However, I could not find an instance where the search box would be any less useful than this list. If you know a person's last name and what they are notable for, using Google and/or the Wikipedia search function will take you to their page. I don't see any reasonable use for this list. Jujutacular (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I put "jones cat" into the search box, thinking of the character in Alien (film) then I get zillions of false hits such as Doctor Jones because the word cat is used in a technical sense. I am an expert in searching for things and it isn't easy. What you need are multiple approaches and tools. Depending upon a single tool is unwise. Deleting a useful index just because you can is disruption. How is such deletion supposed to help the encyclopedia or our readership? Deletion just seems purely obstructive and unhelpful. Warden (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could say that about anything but you provide no evidence. The actual evidence is that Wikipedia has many such lists:
List of people with the surname Abney
List of people with the surname Beaman
List of people with surname Clarke
...
List of people with surname Vogler
List of people with surname Williams
See Category:Lists of people sharing a surname for many more examples. Why should we discriminate against the Jones? Warden (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion they should be deleted also. I'm not nominating them at this time however it would probably be a good idea. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some in that category should be removed from it, others merged/converted into surname articles, others deleted; see my comments above timed at 14:21, 30 January 2013. – Fayenatic London 10:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a subpage of the main disambiguation and surname pages, and like disambiguation pages it's a list for navigation purposes not a list as a presentation of encyclopedic content. It's no more a directory than any disambiguation page or set index. Peter James (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Instead of arguing for deletion of these things one by one, why not find a broader discussion somewhere, and determine if Wikipedia should have these sorts of list or not? Category:Lists of people sharing a surname has 163 entries. This list aid in navigation. You search for the last name of someone, you can then see which person it is you are looking for. You could call it a disambiguate page instead of a list if you wanted to. That is what it is after all. Dream Focus 13:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jones (surname). Generally speaking, that's how lists of people by last name are covered pbp 14:51, 6 February 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. No clear consensus after multiple relistings. The Bushranger One ping only 09:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Mi

Yu Mi (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 be fictional -- the Japanese Wikipedia article indicates that references could be found in the Records of the Three Kingdoms biographies for Sun Ce and Liu Yao (warlord), but I can't find any references to him in either of those two biographies. Not a particularly significant character in the fictional Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is historical, references to him can be found in Rafe de Crespigny's Biographical Dictionary (p. 998) and Generals of the South (pp. 158, 161) and under Sun Ce's biography in the Records of the Three Kingdoms - you probably couldn't find him because Wikisource's faulty simplified-to-traditional Chinese converter turned his name into 於麋.... _dk (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried that. Still not there. --Nlu (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's strange, I've found him here. Two mentions in the paragraph that starts with 壽春，術已據之，繇乃渡江治曲阿。_dk (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here: (繇遣樊能、於麋東屯橫江津，張英屯當利口，以距術。) and in the Jiangbiao Zhuan annotation (江表傳曰： ... 因渡江攻禮，禮突走，而樊能、於麋等複合眾襲奪牛渚屯。) LDS contact me 06:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With that being the case, part of my rationale for deletion is obviously gone. The notability issue remains, but obviously argument for deletion is much weaker. I'd like to see additional comments. --Nlu (talk) 14:12, 25 January 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 22:37, 29 January 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, →Bmusician 03:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 10 February 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, MBisanz talk 00:09, 13 February 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editing Murder of Brandon Brown

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 12:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Jonathan

Jo Jonathan (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 be notably non-notable. Paucity of RS coverage. There is a good reason it is missing from the article itself. Tagged for notability for a year. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've tried to find any coverage under his stage name and real name, there is really nothing outside of his own site or youtube that I can find, shame, have to conclude not notable ---- nonsense ferret 03:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is interesting enough that I wanted to find some reliable sources showing notability. I couldn't. Not everyone with an interesting story is notable by Wikipedia standards, alas. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find coverage in English or German under either his stage name or his birth name. He does not have an article at the German Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 6 February 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. The Bushranger One ping only 12:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History and Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations

History and Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations (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 [2] However, no evidence of notability has been found. It appears to be a self-published history book. Fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (books). maclean (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-published book that does not meet notability criteria. SchreiberBike (talk) 1:15 am, Today (UTC−6)

The book History and Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations by writer Tome Egumenoski and historian Aleksandar Donski is a book that definately contains evidence of notability, it was advertised in the Australian Macedonian Weekly Newspaper in May, 2012 a few months after it was published--William H. Nault (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC) The book also looks at the origin of the Slavs, evidence of notability can also be found on the very first pages where it states the origin of the Macedonian Slavs before their migrations, it also looks at the Slavs of Croatia.--William H. Nault (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Nault, deleting other people's comments in a discussion is extremely bad form in Wikipedia. Assuming you did so accidentally, please be careful not to do so again.
Regarding the book, please read the This page in a nutshell section at the beginning of Wikipedia:Notability (books) and explain how based on Wikipedia standards the book meets those standards. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable.--Yopie (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The title looks like a description of archaeological science, but it appears to be a work only on the archaeology of the Balkans, which is not what the title implies. I think that being reviewed in notable periodicals might make it notable, merely being advertised in the newsletter of an ethnic community does not provide that. Whether the content of the book is reliable or heavily POV is a differnet question. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 11 February 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 Lough Neagh#Uses. MBisanz talk 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lough Neagh Rescue

Lough Neagh Rescue (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 organisation, there are no sources to provide any evidence of notability. The article seems to exist just to provide an ongoing edit war to two different sites about the lifeboat. Martin451 (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lough Neagh#Uses. I'm not sure if there's enough in-depth coverage out there. Most of the sources I found were passing references to their rescue work. Funny Pika! 08:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandalism caused by a Paul Duffy who gained access to an old .co.uk website that had been hacked. It may be better deleted..Paddy P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.141.108 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 9 February 2013‎
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I find that the arguments for keep are stronger than the opposes. The major oppose arguments are that there are few sources (which would be a good one) and that this is a stub (a poor one). A stub is an article that isn't fully developed yet; even if it's a "perma-stub." The argument that there are no sources would be a good one, but Hullaballoo and Warden point out that there may be sources that are not neccessarily available online. We delete because sources do not exist, not because they do not exist online. Consensus leans keep despite split !votes. v/r - TP 18:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will Meugniot

Will Meugniot (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)

Prodded with " Found only name-drops in association with shows he's worked on. No source I found in Google Books or News had even one iota of biographical information". Deprodded for "significant coverage of work, and better searching will turn up bio info". I searched again and again, and could not find ANY sources about him, just his works. Notability is not inherited from notable works. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. First, the nominate has simply fabricated an essential piece of the deletion rationale; it is absolutely false to say that "Notability is not inherited from notable works". WP:NOTINHERIT makes it explicit that the principle cited is "not always the case", and cites various of the creative arts as areas where it does not hold. WP:N and related pages note repeatedly, in various ways, that creators of notable work are generally notable "without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources"[3]; indeed. the typical way for establishing notability for creative folks is to show that they created or participated in notable works (WP:ENT, WP:AUTHOR). Second, the nominator ignores the well-established consensus for articles on professionals in the comics and animation fields, demonstrable through hundreds and hundreds of articles in the relevant categories, that documentation of the subject's work is adequate to sustain an article. Many articles may be in more narrative a structure than this one, but simply converting a list of credits into a narrative chronology is a difference in form, not substance. (Indeed, the nominator has created a great many articles on musicians which merely recite their notable work (eg, Jay Joyce)). Third, the nom's report that he can only find "name-drops" regarding the subject somehow misses the fact that the subject is listed as receiving two Daytime Emmy nominations [4] (not quite so bad a miss as the time that the nom's diligent searching somehow missed an Oscar nomination in assessing notability, but still showing how ineffective his searching is) and somehow overlooks the fact that the subject has directed multiple notable full-length animated releases, which have been independently reviewed (eg, Dragonlance: Dragons of Autumn Twilight. And, although the nom claims to have checked out Google Books listings, it's easy enough to find listings there for print coverage in the comics trade press (eg, Comics Interview 2, April 1983 [5]. A ridiculous nomination that should be dismissed without delay. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not helpful in determining consensus.--v/r - TP 18:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I love how after all this time, you still have the biggest vendetta against me. Nothing that you've cited is biographical, and at least the Jay Joyce article has some meat to it. This is just a one-sentence stub that says nothing on the guy except that he exists. Where's the notability? Nothing you've stated is a real assertation except maybe the awards. And not 100% of award winners are inherently notable. Not anyone who created a show is notable on their own. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We get it. You reject consensus, guideline, and practice and post uncivil rants against people who disagree with you, especially when they point out you have "a history of somehow not being able to find sources during deletion discussions that others are able to find in minutes or seconds."([6], #10). Now could you please return to civility, as difficult as you seem to find that here, and actually address the substantive issues? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only when you stop screaming "speedy keep, Hammer's a goddamn idiot" at every AFD I start. You are being no less incivil than I right now, not to mention outright lying by saying that I "reject consensus, guideline". Where have I rejected consensus here? Several other creators have been deleted despite making notable works — for instance, Andy Berman, who created Psych, had been deleted in the past for a lack of sourcing. And the current form has no sourcing of its own either, just IMDb and another wiki. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a flagrant personal attack, and merits sanction. I set out the substantive analysis above, and you've refused to respond to it. If anyone here can be characterized as "outright lying" it would be you, since you know perfectly well, amd everyone here can plainly see that I'm not "screaming 'speedy keep, Hammer's a goddamn idiot' at every AFD [you] start." You're an experienced, adult editor who shouldn't behave like a tantrum-tossing twelve-year-old when you are caught screwing up. If you keep refusing to respond to substance and instead keep heaving piles of personally directed invective, you shouldn't be surprised if an admin decides to force silence upon you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again: How is what I'm doing any less wrong than your constant wiki-stalking and "speedy keep" at every damn AFD I make? You make so much noise about how I should be blocked for my offenses, but we've beaten that horse into dust ages ago. Clearly if I were a problem, there would have been a consensus to block me years ago. And yet I'm still here. Hmm, maybe that means I'm not doing anything "wrong" enough to warrant a block? Ever think of that? Of course not. You're so insistent on spamming all my AFDs with "Speedy keep" because you disagree with how I interpret policies and guidelines, and you think that I suck at finding references. As if the ones you found were any better. And you know what? Screw it. We've gotten way too far off topic here, and I'd much rather see other people discuss whether or not this guy is notable, instead of you continuing to eviscerate me for the same problems ad nauseam. Please, for the love of God, drop the subject. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop saying things that aren't true; you're deliberately disrupting the process here with accusations you know are false, and have made up for no apparent reason other than childish pique because you've been caught screwing up. You know perfectly well that I haven't been "wikistalking" you or opposing all your afds. It's becoming very hard to avoid the conclusion that you're being deliberately dishonest. Especially since you still won't respond in good faith on any of the substantive points. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is one sentence, and unsourced. The guy probably exists, but sources are needed to establish notability. Howicus (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, look at that, someone else !voted "Delete". Why, I must be the most disruptive freaking person in all of AFD history. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't drag me into your personal dispute. I just voted based on policy. Howicus (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously, creative professionals are determined notable by their works. The nominator's personal opinion doesn't not cancel out the subject specific guideline WP:ENTERTAINER which says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." He is the co-creator and artist of one notable work, and has directed notable films and television shows. Dream Focus 20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • which, unless I'm mistaken, gave nothing but his name. Do you really expect an entire article to hinge on a directory listing verifying literally nothing but that he's a person? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's a bibliography which tells us that the subject has been written about and provides references to more sources. This is enough to confirm notability. If we don't have many confirmed facts to report yet then we just have a short article and that is not a problem requiring deletion. Warden (talk) 18:08, 2 February 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, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 02:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. For such an unusual name, I would have expected a torrent of news entries upon Gsearch. Instead I see two. There are a few other general hits, but none of these leap out to me that this person is a notable artist. Just because his name appears in a directory doesn't mean he deserves a WP entry.  Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you discount the search results that show he was twice nominated for Emmy Awards and has directed multiple films/TV shows receiving independent reviews, thereby squarely qualifying under WP:ENT? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The director of notable films is notable. What on earth could possibly make a director notable otherwise? It's not the routine facts of his bio or education, which are useful information, but what is important about him is what heis professional work consists of. (It's not quite this simple, because someone who had directed two barely notable films and nothing else, would rightly be considered far too borderline, and we would rightly delete it. But looking at the articles for what he has directed, there are 3 clearly notable films or series, and work asa producer on others.) Inherited means inherited downwards; the correct use of the rule is to say, although we have decided he is notable, anything he may direct might or might not be notable, but cannot be assumed to be--for that to be true, he'd have to be considered famous, which he is not. I think the nom must know this, for its come up hundreds of times, and always means it this way. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we don't know a scrap of biographical information? Isn't that counter to WP:BLP? I still see nothing but directory listings of works he was involved in. What I don't see is anything of substance. Just "Will Meugniot did this, this, and this." Where's the biographical info? Is that not a set in stone requirement of WP:BLP? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently not. I just looked though WP:BLP, especially Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable sources, and see nothing of the sort. "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" must be sourced per WP:V; WP:BLP adds "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." It does not say "include biographical information in the article or delete it"; the age of the article precludes WP:BLPPROD. If WP:NPEOPLE is met, that is sufficent for this article, so the discussion needs to be based on that, not WP:BLP. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The general requirement of in-depth coverage in WP:GNG, which is not met here, largely derives from the desire to have sufficient reliable sources to avoid inappropriate WP:UNDUE weight and thus honor WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Some of our special notability guidelines carefully carve out, largely correctly, alternative guidelines which work well in specific fields--things like the named chair provision of WP:ACADEMIC and as here, some provisions of WP:ENT. While I'm often dubious of claims of the significance of roles and/or movie works which themselves lack much in the way of coverage, the daytime Emmy nominations (and any independent reviews of his works, as noted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above) each independently would to my mind "hit the bar". Are we relying on horrible sources to show that? I don't think so, even if the sourcing here looks weak overall. Are the nominations verifiable? I presume so. Is the resulting article horribly non-neutral? I doubt it. So, why not? --j⚛e deckertalk 01:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's a freaking permastub that says nothing about the guy, just his works? Why can't anyone get that through their head? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you believe it needs anything more? Some read Wikipedia articles to find out what someone accomplished in their life, not where they were born, went to school, or other irrelevant nonsense. And it can be expanded, just click the link in the article to his official website and click biography if you wanted to find out more information about the guy. [7] See how easy that is? Does Wikipedia benefit in any possible way by deleting this article? Dream Focus 02:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We benefit from not having a "biography" that's actually 100% list. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fully intended to !vote keep based on the awards section but on closer inspection I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced that the 'International Monitor Award' is a major award and the snipit used to verify his Daytime Emmys doesn't tell me anything. Meeting one or more criteria of WP:DIRECTOR or any other subject-specific guidelines does not guarantee that a subject is notable. J04n(talk page) 12:39, 13 February 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) -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 10:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kost Novytsky

Kost Novytsky (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)

Unsourced BLP. I haven't been able to find any useful sources to add to the article to provide evidence of notability. If anyone can find reliable sources I would be happy with a speedy keep. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 07:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some info in Cyrillic: [8]. (I'm nuetral with respect to removal for notability).Faustian (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient sources in Google Books for Костянтин Новицький. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:16, 2 February 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, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 02:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't read cyrillic, and I don't think lack of English sources is sufficient grounds alone for deletion. Just be looking at the bio, I would say that he seems to fail WP:MUSICIAN. So he teaches at a conservatory and has recorded an album with a notable musician... Big deal!  Ohconfucius ping / poke 07:00, 5 February 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, MBisanz talk 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Kost Novytsky was notable enough to:
  1. have been awarded by Presidential decree the title Merited Artist of Ukraine,[1] and
  2. to have been featured in a half-hour long television program made by the State Television Service.[2]
--Very trivial (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Указ, Президент України Про присвоєння почесних звань України працівникам Державної заслуженої капели бандуристів України, м. Київ ("President's Decree for Awarding of Merited Artist of Ukraine for the National Bandura Capella of Ukraine") N 557/93, 26.11.1993". Government of Ukraine. 26 November 1993.
  2. ^ Broadcast of Kostantyn Novytsky teaching and discussing the bandura by the Ukrainian Government television channel "Kultura" in 2010.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Maduekwe

Joe Maduekwe (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)

Unsourced BLP. I haven't been able to find any useful sources to add to the article to provide evidence of notability. If anyone can find reliable sources I would be happy with a speedy keep. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 07:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible delete - Google News found an article but it was dead so I was able to recover here at archive.org and Google Books found two results from the 1990s which prove he existed. The archive.org article supports his work with Total Aluminum and, if it was founded in 1997, that means it happened after Nigerian Railway Corporation. Unfortunately, the first link only mentions him briefly and is not sufficient for notability and the two Google Books results don't provide much through the previews. Searches at Nigerian newspapers The Sun, Vanguard, Daily Times, Business Day and The Guardian provided nothing. It saddens me to see the article has never been significantly or even slightly improved since the beginning, at least something about his current career. I'm willing to reconsider if other sources are found. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 2 February 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, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 02:34, 5 February 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. MBisanz talk 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subhasita Samgraha

Subhasita Samgraha (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)

Another 25 volumes from the prolific Sarkar. The single independent source cited is a self-published ebook that mentions the collection only in passing. No academic coverage, no popular reviews, and no notability. I wouldn't object to a redirect to the Sarkar bibliography article, but I think the best solution here is a simple delete.

As always: while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study. GaramondLethe 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nom.

As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion - no need to also "vote". ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
My bad – thanks for pointing that out. GaramondLethe 14:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... but why don't we save everyone a bit of time and trouble here? I am willing to stipulate that all of Garamond's compadres at Fringe/n would or will cast a Delete or Redirect vote here. And I am even willing to predict - not stipulate - that some Wikipedia admin will come here after seven days and simply tally the votes, ignoring the fact that there is no consensus, and decide to either delete or redirect. There's no need to dedicate much energy putting lipstick on this pig. Hence, I offer a proforma response to Garamond's proforma nomination. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that so many articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users, with various excuses, seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.
Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.
My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:35, 30 January 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, Mkdwtalk 02:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Discussion so far have been pleads with the community (copy & pasted across multiple AfDs) that are not AfD discussion regarding the article or policies. Re-listed for direct AfD discussion. Mkdwtalk 02:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Documentation: Sorry for not giving this AfD nomination. I've been coping with a lot of non-WP work in addition to the onslaught of AfDs on Sarkar-related articles (I believe there are 9 concurrent AfDs from this nominator alone). Regarding the nominator's claim that there is no academic coverage, that is not correct. Academic coverage is even cited in the article itself (vide Kang: Sarkar and the Buddha's Four Noble Truths). As may be seen here, this serious academic article also appears in the journal "Philosophy East & West" Volume 61 Number 2 April 2011 303-323, published by the University of Hawaii Press. There is a much larger document by Kang - his PhD thesis - that I will try to secure a copy of by writing to him. In all likelihood, this doctoral thesis will have more references to the Subhasita Samgraha series. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Editor's note: Garamond your atempt to delete all articles related with Shrii P. R. Sarkar continues also when academic coverage is evident.--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; there may be a handful of tenuous google hits, and some coverage from other points within the Sarkarverse, but without indepth discussion by independent sources, it fails our notability guideline. bobrayner (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For this to be notable, this collection of his essays as such would need being notable, not merely the content which he expresses there and elsewhere. I have been from the first a supporter of full coverage of fringe subjects, for where else can people expect to find reliable information but a comprehensive encyclopedia such as ours? But this is excessive detail, and does not warrant a separate article. My advice to the supporters of the articles on him is tat they themselves try to combine articles and remove the least important. A few stronger articles is always better. GTrying to get too many gives the impression of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. Location (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE due to sockpuppetry involved. The Bushranger One ping only 12:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Johns

Phil Johns (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)

Unsourced WP:BLP created before March 18, 2010. Subject fails WP:NMMA, with one fight for Shooto and other for the UFC. LlamaAl (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:46, 6 February 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. J04n(talk page) 11:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E-dentity

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

The article opens with a definition of E-dentity saying that its meaning is the reputation given to an internet user by combining the information from associable usernames and other data on the internet. That definition is unreferenced. The next part of the article says that E-dentity is someone’s identity in the online healthcare world. That definition is supported by one reference (ref 1, Guenther) and is different, though slightly similar, from the original definition given. References 2 and 3 (both by Ouzounian) talk about a play called "E-dentity", not the word nor do they ever use E-dentity as anything other than the name of the play and therefor are not relevant. WP:GNG PhantomTech (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not wise enough to say delete or keep in this case. For the play E-dentity, it does back up the definition of the word, but I don't it should be mentioned. There are better refs out there. The last two sentences of the paragraph are copyvio. I'm not seeing anything with a general web search except for a company call E-dentity. They have multiple web fronts. Newspaper sources include Los Angeles Times in 1999 and The Mark, but only a few other sources. Google books has multiple books. Would this be better at wikitionary? Bgwhite (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what wikitionary's policy on notability is but yes, being a word, it probably should be on wikitionary instead. Anyway, I don't think that being the name of a play supports the definiton of the word. PhantomTech (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:45, 6 February 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, MBisanz talk 00:07, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 20 February 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. Note this is not a keep closure as many of the votes were faulty it existed type votes that are usually discarded in AFD, and the policy based consensus either lean to move and discuss either a merge, a rename or something else, or delete. As those two sides are similarly split policy based, and AFD is not cleanup, it's a clear cut no consensus, and discuss this further on the talk page. Secret account 06:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commissioner Government

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

Does not meet WP:GNG lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per Talk:Commissioner_Government#Notability. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are 100000 more sources than it is presented in article. I will mention just a few that have more information's then just info: The National liberation war and revolution in Yugoslavia (1941-1945), Zbornik za povijest školstva i prosvjete, Volumes 19-21, Prilozi za istoriju socijalizma, Volumes 11-12, Religion Under Siege: Protestant, Orthodox and Muslim communities in occupied Europe (1939-1950), Nations and nationalities of Yugoslavia (Nada Dragić)... etc, etc. This article should be expanded, and not deleted. Relevant subject about puppet government in occupied Serbia. Keep, for sure. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I note that WW has not even made a cursory attempt to explain how he got the incredible 100,000 sources. This is just a repetition of the same unfounded nonsense that he has used in place of policy-based argument on the talk page. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm, obviously, its not "literally" 10.000 sources, but vast number of sources available on line. not to mention all of those that can be found off line. Anyway, that is irrelevant, sources are here, for sure, this article should be expanded, and then we may talk about it. But to delete only because you think that it fails WP:GNG per significant coverage? That is, i must use the same word again, obviously, wrong. Also, i think that nominator should not !vote, as his vote is already presented in nomination. --WhiteWriterspeaks 23:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have re-read the AfD guideline, and have adopted the approach that my nomination shows my !vote. However, your comment "to delete ONLY because you think it fails WP:GNG per significant coverage" cannot be left alone. It is not "wrong", it is actually what the policy says. Please supply a diff showing the "vast number of sources available online", otherwise it is reasonable to assume you are relying on Proof by assertion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maker, you already have here 6 more sources, plus those in article. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what coverage is there? Is it significant or is it just a passing mention? Give an example. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The novosti article is about Janković and from what I understand from a very limited Google translate, it focuses on his role in the Nedić government, not his role or activities in the Commissioner Government. It certainly does not constitute significant coverage of the "Commissioner Government" which is the subject of this article. If you think Janković needs his own article, fill your boots, but that article is not an example of significant coverage of the "Commissioner Government". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And all the rest of sources are. This is just a cherry on top. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another is a WP:CIRCULAR reference to the "Appeal to the Serbian People" article on sr WP. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a lot of relevant info to say, then it deserves separate article. But when we have normal Serbia during World War II article, instead of this POV pushed monstrosity, we can maybe propose some other solution. --WhiteWriterspeaks 10:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should back up your claims of a "POV-pushed monstrosity" with a modicum of cleanup tags or apologize for disrespecting what appears to be a fine contribution. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect an apology or recognition for the work from WW. It is evident from the lack of work they have put into the content that almost none of the editors that fought tooth and nail about the title of that article care a jot about the content. It's one of the reasons I am very wary about changing the title. It seems to me that it is be highly likely that a change to the title would be followed by a torrent of poorly sourced and revisionist changes to the article to make it about "eternal Serbia" rather than about a piece of Yugoslavia that the Germans administered using a military government. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect Joy, can we keep this on topic? The discussion you want to have I am happy to contribute to, but this AfD discussion is not the place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's on topic because the question is the same - are these subtopics of Serbia in WWII notable enough for standalone articles or not? Taken out of context, removing this article based on GNG seems like an awfully high standard for standalone notability. In context, it might not be. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I accept the basic premise. Can you expand? Do you mean in the context of the Territory or in the context of the GNS or what? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the current CG article, out of any context, it seems notable enough - six book sources for just a four-month period. Sure, none of them are really significant, but to say that it adds up is plausible. It would actually fare well in comparison with e.g. State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. But, if we look at it in context of the fact it's just three paragraphs about something that's got to be described in the Territory... article anyway - then a removal (redirection) seems more appropriate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your summation. So you are in favour of making this article title a redirect to the Territory... one or the GNS one? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with the idea of merging the two puppet governments into one separate article if there was a way to name that article in a straightforward manner. I'm also fine with the idea of making them both section redirects into one article that is even more general, be it the Territory... article or an even more general article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. What about Serbian puppet governments during World War II to combine the two? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, possibly also s/during/in/. Also, the assumption is that you'd move the relevant details from the Territory... article there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It exist a lot of sources about this topic. I think its a relevant topic about puppet government in occupied Serbia during the WW2. This article should be expanded.--Nado158 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are you asserting provide significant coverage? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have an article on the Government of National Salvation, so having an article on the preceding government makes sense. Whether the current title is the best I do not know, but that's a different question. I agree with Joy that the nominator's interpretation of the GNG sets the bar too high. Srnec (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Commissioner Government of Serbia or Commissioner Government (Serbia). The present title sounds like an article about the concept, rather than a particular administration (as the Americans would call it). The subject is clearly notable. Deficiencies with the quality of the refernecing are a matter for article improvement, not deletion. My only concern would be if this was duplicatiing sonething else. I note that there are a lot of redlinks, but some one who has served as a minister probably ought to have an article, even if the career was a short one due to the defeat of the Germans and expulsion of its Qisling government. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm a little confused here. Is anyone disputing that such a government existed? If not, then as a national government it clearly deserves to have its own article, no matter how long it existed or how many sources cover it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 11 February 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, MBisanz talk 00:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp, not sure how your statement gels with WP policy on notability. In any case, this was a puppet government of an occupied territory, and can in no way be described as a national government. Serbia was not a nation at that time. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no policies on notability. There are guidelines and opinions. A puppet government is still effectively a national government. We use common sense here, not unswerving dogma. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The administration of the territories occupied by Germany at this period is a subject of serious academic interest. The question of the legitimacy of that administration, and even whether the area was internationally recognised as a state, is irrelevant when we are talking of a de facto government, even a puppet one. Much greater difficulties actually arise over the legitimacy of governments in exile. The article is certainly inadequate and the title needs improvement but there is often a problem of paucity of sources with historical subjects. We need to maintain a neutral POV and avoid arguments based on a dislike of the subject matter. --AJHingston (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so who exactly are you saying made an argument based on a dislike of the subject matter here? Peacemaker67 seems to have spent a fair bit of time documenting the subject matter, so that can't possibly be a fair description of his stance; ZjarriRrethues said it's a content fork. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I am very interested in the subject matter, I just don't think this particular topic meets WP:GNG on its own. As Joy and I have discussed above, it and the Government of National Salvation (GNS) article (which is clearly notable and succeeded this administration) could very neatly be combined to create a Serbian puppet governments during World War II article. The sources are clear that neither of these "governments" actually did much governing, as the Germans maintained a "supervisory" military government which retained executive power over the entire territory. There is nothing POV about trying to place these issues in proper context. The fact that several editors commenting here have not known the nature of the "Commissioner Government" just shows that context is important. Either context alongside the GNS in a combined article, or context in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is not enough to sustain a separate article, that's an argument for a merger, not deletion. There is nothing preventing context from being given in the article to prevent misunderstanding. That is also not an argument for deletion. To my mind, an AFD suggests that the title up for deletion ought to be permanently redlinked or that the article is a hoax. Neither is the case here. Srnec (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Srnec on this. I thought I did detect a 'don't like it' line of argument on the talk page, but perhaps I misinterpreted. That the German attempt to establish this as a puppet administration failed, or that it never really had any power, are part of the topic. So is a comparison with other attempts to do so. Giving it space in WP does not confer retrospective legitimacy or importance. We have to be very careful in using GNG with historical topics because we are trying to apply current measures of notability retrospectively ('once notable, always notable'). The question might be whether we would think it notable if it happened now, at least in Serbia? That it may now be largely forgotten does not matter because an encyclopedia exists, at least in part, to tell us about things that we do not know. --AJHingston (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is a legitimate and not an uncommon result of an AfD, though in retrospect it might have made more sense to simply go with WP:PM on this. At this point we better wrap it up - do we have consensus here that the proposed merge is not controversial? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Merge this article and Government of National Salvation into a Serbian puppet governments of World War II article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs)
You will have to propose that on talk page. This article will be obviously kept here in the current form. I disagree with merger, per keep voices above, and more reasons that will be explained on the relevant talk page, outside this RfD. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:41, 19 February 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, Eduemoni↑talk↓ 16:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-The article seems well referenced and of serious academic interest. Notability is ensured.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user Knight of Infinity has just recently created an account and most of his edits now are keep !votes in various AfDs... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:48, 24 February 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. J04n(talk page) 16:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in London

Tourism in London (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 looks as if it should be at WikiVoyage. The economics are already better covered on the London page and everything else is opinion or guide and directory material failing WP:NOT. The subject can be adequately covered on the London page without this fork which acts as a coatrack for directory material. Charles (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not against the article in theory, but the risk of coat-racking is high. Can this be transwikied while not harming this project? Bearian (talk) 18:45, 4 February 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 00:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We must always keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. According to policy, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the topic is obviously notable, considering it represents half 10% of the business revenue of the city. Take out the tourist guide stuff and put in some historical information. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiVoyage or delete. Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. JIP | Talk 07:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OMG, if this was an article for a company, I'd have it deleted for being WP:SPAM or WP:HOWTO. If there's a place in Wikisphere, it's at Wikivoyage, not here. Indeed the topic should be a notable one, but little of the content is relevant to our context, and we may as well start again from scratch.  Ohconfucius ping / poke 07:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Keep as amended by Oakshade. I agree that the present article content is really for Wikivoyage. But WP does have other similarly titled articles such as Tourism in New York City and Kitfoxxe makes the point that the subject is undoubtedly notable in WP terms. There are plenty of sources for a good article just on the history of London tourism, let alone the current tourist industry. There does not seem anything worthwhile to merge with the Wikivoyage article, so not so much a case of transwiki as blowing up and starting again. In the meantime, a redirect without prejudice to recreation with clear demarkation between this and Wikivoyage, unless there is a volunteer to take it on now (not me, I live in another tourist city which needs better coverage). --AJHingston (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tourism in London is a multi-billion pound business and is definitely a notable topic in itself. Unfortunately this article is written like a travel guild. It needs re-working. That's not a reason for deletion in itself. How the tourist business developed over the years, how it increased (and decreased [10]) over time is what's needed. --Oakshade (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article bluntly violates WP:NOTTRAVEL right now. Deleting, redirecting/merging, or keeping this won't make much of a difference since the article needs to literally be rewritten from scratch to meet Wikipedia standards and guidelines, so overhauling an existing article won't be easier than creating a new one. Deleting this without prejudice against recreation might be better than keeping it in hopes that someone will fix it, which will not happen overnight nor will be completed in a quick fashion, but hey, if someone can do that before the AfD closes, I am willing to change my vote. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice - If there's no objection, I'm going to delete most of the travel guide-esque content of this article and preserve just the intro and the "Economics of tourism in London" section. That way it can be a stub that editors can properly grow from in the perspective of the tourism business and impacts. -- Oakshade (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Done. --Oakshade (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but heavily prune -- An article with this title should exist, but the travel guide material belongs in wikivoyage. Oakshade has got it about right. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well established type of article here, including the travel highlights. Perhaps we should reconsider the type of content in such articles now that we have wikivoyage, but I think their coverage on this would become much more encompassing than this, and this is a summary appropriate for WP. And in any case, the content that Oakshade highlights is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prune. I've little doubt that the general topic of tourism in London is a topic which can be encyclopedic (size of the tourist trade, related tourism growth organizations and governmental efforts, perhaps a short sourced list of most popular destinations). There is a place here for both Wikipedia *and* Wikivoyage. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Kowalski

Gary Kowalski (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 notable enough for wikipedia. GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets our longstanding notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the Manitoba legislature. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly Keep, meets WP:POLITICIAN, elected twice, even quarrelled with party leadership for a short period. I suggest the nominator withdraw this one. PKT(alk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, also lacks alot of sources. I googled his name and found nothing, so yeah, not notable. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try adding the word Manitoba to your Google searches, IronKnuckle, and you will see coverage in reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are now three solid references in the article, including two I added. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned by the first two: The article clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. Article deletion would be uncalled for as stated in the guideline, should consensus be away from keep redirecting to their group or one of the elections suffices. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and WP:SNOW close WP:POLITICIAN clearly states "provincial legislature". The Canadian political system is perhaps little difficult to understand but MLA's are essentially the equivalent of the US House of Representatives (Governors and Senators). Mkdwtalk 01:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or, more accurately, members of a state legislature (also a position that's notable enough to constitute an automatic keep.) Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Member of the provincial legislature. We're done. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proper sourcing is, of course, always needed on Wikipedia — but as already noted, members of a provincial legislature in Canada (and members of a state legislature in the US) are always notable enough for inclusion whether you think their own individual record of accomplishment constituted something uniquely notable or not. And the sourcing has been improved since nomination, and can quite easily be still further improved — we are not limited to web-published content for referencing, but can dig into print-only content as well, so one person's failure to find referencing that's specifically available via Google does not override WP:POLITICIAN. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close. Just another transparently futile nomination from a recently arrived SPA with an agenda conflicting with the article subject's politics. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 9 February 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) 16:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balispirit Festival

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

This article doesn't appear to satisfy the notability guidelines‎ for Wikipedia. GemBlog (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:59, 30 January 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 00:39, 5 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:49, 12 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. coverage is not indepth merely confirms existence. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 19 February 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (speak) @ 10:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manjaagiin Ichinnorov

Manjaagiin Ichinnorov (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 does not establish notability. Was prodded before but refs were added. Current refs total three, one dead link and another that links to the subject's personal website. Whilst she appears to do good work, it seems to be that she fails WP:GNG Fenix down (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's particular unfortunate (though not unexpected given its age) that this link is dead as it connected to other links as well. The source still exists, though, and only requires you to go to the Ödriin sonin building or (hopefully) the Central Library to verify. For a Mongolian person, even a significant one, sufficient internet coverage is rarely sustained for any longer period: few Mongolian internet posts seem to outlive 2 years. So I think your argument based on the GNG is not convincing. G Purevdorj (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:GNG does not demand that only online sources are used. If there are existing textual sources that can be used then please reference the article accorindingly with the refs showing the correct ISBN number. It is a shame there is not much online about this woman, but as things stand the article references only her personal website and online searches pull back little of note. Fenix down (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the ISSN of Ödriin sonin, but it is a relatively large newspaper associated with the Mongolian Democratic Party. I've dived a bit into online reports. That woman is publishing a lot herself, but some independent online sources do exist. Not on the issues presented in the current Wikipedia article, of course, these are too long ago. I'll link some of these sources, but you can take for granted that most will be dead links before two years are over. Is there a way to archieve source pages on Wikipedia? Else I'll have to handle a third deletion discussion as well ...

A report about Ichinnorov being selected as one of the world’s 20 most influential female lawyers by “Америкийн их сургуулиудын онлайн холбоо” http://www.unen.mn/content/1510.shtml

http://www.shuud.mn/%D0%BC-%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%B4%D1%8D%D0%BB%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B9%D0%BD-%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B4%D1%8D%D0%B3%D1%82-%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B0/ an article about the same event, the selecting organization was American “Online College Network”

Article that announces the appointment of Ichinnorov as the Vice chair of the party committee for Family issues, May 2011 http://factnews.mn/news/view/index/id/8301

Interviews where Ichinnorov (as a member of the small assembly of the MAH criticizes the oligarchization of the party, December 2011 http://www.gonews.mn/post.php?id=2317 http://www.gonews.mn/post.php?id=2250

Declaration why she is leaving the MAH, April 2012 http://times.mn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4016:-----7--&catid=10:2011-09-12-13-40-48&Itemid=24

A conference on human rights in Mongolia, website of the office for citizens of the Mongolian president. Features the presentation of Ichinnorov in the subheadline and gives her words verbatim at the end of the article, December 2012 http://www.irgen.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=140:2012-12-10-08-12-27&catid=4:procuror&Itemid=3

An article on the same presentation on another news portal http://www.news.mn/content/127916.shtml

G Purevdorj (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I entered those sources. G Purevdorj (talk) 18:42, 30 January 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 00:37, 5 February 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, MBisanz talk 00:06, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 20 February 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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges

Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges (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 college consortium: does not appear to have achieved anything, no real indication of lasting importance and influence. GrapedApe (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:03, 30 January 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 00:36, 5 February 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 12:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some coverage found via GNews, GBooks (I added a couple), and a bunch of references to assorted studies and projects of this organization can be seen at GScholar. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Consortium is notable, it has a variety of articles and books produced. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EFans (website)

EFans (website) (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 multitude of sources, this website appears non-notable. The sources are a collection of blogs and forum posts, plus one regurgiated press release. There's no significant coverage in truly reliable, independent sources. Huon (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - So immensely WP:OVERLINK-ed that we have to deal with that first. Looking at the article I'm not seeing any stubstantial claim to to it's notability. Hasteur (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to fail our web guidelines. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advert. Also a copy of a declined article at WP:AFC, so may come under A10. Mdann52 (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no news, books or reliable sources turn up in a search, current list of sources all looks unreliable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:15, 6 February 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. Wizardman 16:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckles Madsen

Knuckles Madsen (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 reference in the article doesn't contain significant coverage of the subject (as in, there isn't a significant amount of text about him, just a directory listing). I can't find any other sources online that pass WP:RS, so I think the subject fails WP:BASIC. I'm not aware of a subject-specific notability guideline for professional wrestling, but he doesn't seem to have done anything especially notable, and a comparison to WP:NMMA also suggests non-notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NiciVampireHeart 16:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:28, 22 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:08, 29 January 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 00:21, 5 February 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. MBisanz talk 00:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Green

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

Does not meet notability guidelines Factface (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)— Factface (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The article makes claims that seem to satisfy wp:academics, like having made key contributions in his field. Is your argument that those claims aren't justified/backed by fact? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete - I have two issues with the page: 1) The subject is an active researcher, but I could not identify major contributions to the field of genetics. 2) The page is exclusively written by the subject's staff, and has not been updated.Factface (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)— Factface (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion - no need to also "vote". ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 22 January 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 08:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He doesn't seem to clearly meet any of the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. He is quite well-cited on Google Scholar, but a lot of those papers have several authors, and he's in a field where having a lot of citations is common. Claims that he's innovative or important in his field aren't properly supported by evidence. I don't see in depth press coverage. And he doesn't have a full professorship, professional position, awards, or fellowships such as would justify notability. If there was clearer evidence about the importance of his contribution to science, or greater coverage of his work (e.g. in mainstream media articles), I would reconsider, but he seems a run of the mill researcher. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gscholar h-index of 42, which is very high, regardless of high-citation level of field. If we restrict to articles where he is first author, that is still a h-index of 20 or so, which I think is a very good argument for passing WP:PROF#C1. Otherwise, the fact that he is cited as a key researcher in New York Times articles in explaining various facets of Alzheimer's research contributes strongly to a pass of WP:PROF#C7, given the importance of Alzheimer's disease to the population at large. RayTalk 04:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A first author h-index of 20 is pretty common, especially for an established academic of 21 years. Almost all HMS faculty have at least that h-index, and it does not make them notable. I also think the claims in the article are unsubstantiated by the citations. The article reads as a puff bio by a colleague or employee (whose username is from his institution, BWH.) If it is not deleted it should be restructured. Medicine72 (talk) 01:56, 4 February 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, MBisanz talk 00:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Others have already noted his highly cited research (only looking at papers where he is first author, I'm still seeing some with hundreds of citations). But also, several research results on which he was lead researcher have been reported in newspapers: higher risk of Alzheimer's for African-Americans in the Boston Herald and Washington Post; plans for large drug studies in the Salt Lake Tribune and Boston Herald; psychological consequences of genetic testing for Alzheimer's susceptibility in the Chicago Tribune; beneficial effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs on Alzheimer's in the Chicago Tribune. So I think he passes WP:PROF#C1, #C7, and WP:GNG for the nontrivial coverage of his research in multiple newspapers. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only significant problem I see is that the article reads like a vanity piece written by a single purpose account, and as such needs a cleanup.  Ohconfucius ping / poke 07:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High cites on GS passes WP:Prof#C1 easily. Editors are at liberty to clean-up. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete I fundamentally disagree with the notion that an academic with an h-index of 12, or a well-cited paper should be listed on Wikipedia. Almost all academics at research universities meet these criteria, so they cannot be exclusively used to meet the threshold for notability, even when interpreted broadly. We need encyclopedic content, not vanity pieces or a catalog of faculty.Dfcigen (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BLPs of researchers are determined according to the WP:Prof guidelines. If you disagree with them the best place to argue that is on those pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I completely agree with the use of citations and h-indices as academic notability metrics. However, my point is that if one were to look through the faculty list at even moderate research universities, most faculty meet this individual's h-index (12), and as such, this h-index is not notable in this context. Dfcigen (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are three possible bases to support notability for academics: WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, and the GNG. He seems clearly to meet the GNG. I think he meets WP:PROF also as an expert in his field. The use of h index as the sole determinant of notability is inappropriate, of course, because it fails to take account of papers with very high citations . h=42 could mean 42 papers with 42 citations each, or 41 papers with 400 each and 1 with 42, and the implications are very different. In his case, the key factor is that there are 4 or 5 papers with very high citations of over 200, The the use of citations to determine academic notability is how the profession does it. It is false that all academics at research universities meet a standards of notability based on citations: it is very rare that Assistant Professors do, for if they had done sufficient work for that, they would have been promoted. It is extremely rare that a full professor does not, for at a major university nobody is admitted to that rank without being a leader in their subject, as judged by their peers. (Associate professor is an intermediary rank; I think the determination that someone is worthy of that rank, the rank that carries tenure, indicates that their colleagues think them a leader in their subject, but some others here working on these articles think it indicates merely the promise that they will become and remain so.) DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 12 February 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_February_5&oldid=536635239"