Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:52, 11 October 2014

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 October	4 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) SmileBlueJay97 talk 03:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Mark E. Anderson

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

As the existing article states: "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies". In my opinion as a current Coordinator of WikiProject Military History, this article should be deleted. Adamdaley (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could I ask the nominator to expand on his rationale, as by his military rank, the subject technically seems to meet criterion 3 of WP:SOLDIER. PWilkinson (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General officers, whether regular or reserve, are generally considered notable per WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I would like this to be withdrawn due to WP:SOLDIER. Adamdaley (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barry J. Sanders

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

Non-notable college football player. Only claim to notability is his association to his father Barry Sanders. Natg 19 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG - Has not played in a professional league, has not gained significant notability while playing college football. Some media interest due to famous relative and future possibilities does not make subject relevant. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read the links provided below I am changing my vote to keep, per Bradkoch2007. I feel that the links provided below should be in the article. If anyone feels like doing it feel free, if not I will see if I have some time this weekend. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Taketa + sources added SmileBlueJay97 talk 03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had no problem finding significant coverage in the New York Times, SF Chronicle, San Jose Mercury-News, Bleacher Report, Fox Sports West, NBC Bay Area... All on the first page of a simple Google search for BARRY + SANDERS + STANFORD (see below). Please don't make this argument, while there may be a potential basis for a notability challenge on family relationships, there certainly is no lack of substantial published coverage, which is massive. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or Userfy~~ if someone wants it. I agree that there really isn't enough third party reliable coverage to surpass the notability threshhold at this time. However, I would be shocked if this continues through the end of next season. No prejudice to recreate should the subject surpass the notability threshhold in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FLIPFLOP to Keep I did not find those sources the first time around, but there they are! I make it a point to change my mind and agree with Carrite and Dirtlawyer1 whenever they are right.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With all due respect to Paul McDonald, articles such as THIS from the San Francisco Chronicle, and THIS from Bleacher Report, and THIS from Fox Sports West, and THIS from the San Jose Mercury News, and THIS from the New York Times, and THIS from NBC Bay Area in addition to sources showing in the piece and dozens of other possible articles on the internet and in print indicates that this subject already easy passes our General Notability Guideline, which calls for multiple, substantial, published pieces of coverage in so-called "reliable" sources. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note to closing administrator: don't count noses, count sources. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clear "keep" !vote after reviewing the articles linked by Carrite above, most of which feature Sanders as the primary subject, and thereby satisfying the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. As an aside, Carrite, we usually do not accept reader-submitted content, such as that found on Bleacher Report, as a reliable source. Nice work other than that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re the aside, some of the "lead writers" on Bleacher Report are paid professionals whose work may qualify as RS. (See [1], [2], for example.) I do tend to avoid it as a source because of the lack of clarity, but I note that this particular article is written by such a lead writer. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I don't discount the many sources found about Sanders, his notability derives from the fact that he is the son of a Hall of Fame running back. These articles would not exist otherwise. I don't believe that Sanders has done anything notable on his own (ex. winning a national award, or setting a record) that warrants his own article. Natg 19 (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not require any particular accomplishments; it only requires significant coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: - WP:INHERITED (which is not a guideline) states the norm that "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article." -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Taketa. There is more than ample independent coverage of Sanders, Jr., by himself, to satisfy GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How much of his notability is originally derived from his father's has become irrelevant - deserved or not, the younger has become a publicly known figure with substantial press coverage about his current status and future opportunities. Bradkoch2007 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw by nominator - I am withdrawing this nomination due to the !votes and arguments for Keep above. Natg 19 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwalpreet Singh

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

A rather unotable actor it seems (also from a creator who has quite a few afds that have happened with these) Almost sounds like a promotion. (And it needs a better layout anyway) And no reliable sources either. Wgolf (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not result in any notable mentions. Some of the reviews of movies listed in the article page do not mention this actor as well. Arunram (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's the kind of actor article you see at AfD all the time. No significant coverage, no major appearances in notable films. Fails WP:NACTOR. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No major roles or achievements. Fails WP:NACTOR. The movies specified in "Film career" does not have this actor's name as an actor. Athachil (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As I understand the discussion, the nominator accepted that the actor is notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alban Ukaj

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

Actor who is basically in a bunch of unotable roles. Too soon if ever Wgolf (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Takeaway (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Actor seems notable in Albania and apparently also in surrounding countries such as Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia, especially as a stage actor (see http://gazetablic.com/nuk-ka-asnje-parti-politike-qe-te-mos-kete-influence-ne-teater/ , http://gazetajnk.com/?cid=1,975,742 , and http://www.zhurnal.mk/content/?id=1312131172027). - Takeaway (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article should be expanded to show his notability as a stage actor. - Takeaway (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Takeaway-Thats true-the article makes it sound like he is a film only actor which is why I put that up there, and then seeing he was just basically a extra in unotable films seemed like a complete waste of space. Wgolf (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I did make the format better for the refs (and took out the link for the film and just kept his own IMDB page up) Wgolf (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Çomment: In J.A.C.E., at least if I have understood it correctly from one article about him in Albanian, he was one of the nominees for best actor at the Tokyo Film Festival in 2011 but didn't win, so not really just an extra. In the notable film Lorna's Silence, he is also one of the main actors. - Takeaway (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Ha okay, I guess it was just not a well written article! At least I did manage to catch this! Wgolf (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the problem also lies in the fact that just clicking on the notability search buttons at the top of this AfD page, leads to Anglophone media. Not a very reliable way to research the notability of people who are famous outside of the Anglophone sphere. - Takeaway (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Smith

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

Non-notable athlete. Jacona (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage and fails to meet WP:NCOLLATH.Mdtemp (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. And I don't see why this person would be primary over the golfer Taylor Smith, or Taylor Smith the passed-away 12-year-old who gone viral with her letter to 22-year-old self (which is what I found mostly). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 08:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NCOLLATH. Quis separabit? 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dee Time. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna McDonald

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

Apparently non-notable person. I can find just about no information about her, and the article itself contains virtually no information; it's also mostly based on one source. What's in the article is not actually about her but about a short-lived TV series, Dee Time, in which she appeared in the opening credits. Dee Time itself might perhaps be notable, though it doesn't currently have an article, but Lorna McDonald doesn't meet the notability requirements for biographies. Robofish (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Notifying principal contributors: User:BONNUIT, User:IXIA.)Robofish (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leave for now? Your comments suggest you may not be acquainted with the subject/background - for example, Dee Time was a massively popular show at the time (almost 50 years ago - when, of course, the sort of information the article contains wouldn't routinely have been recorded on the internet, etc as it is now). Might be better to leave it flagged in the hope the someone can pick it up - eg for an article about Dee Time. Rather pointless, in my view, merely to delete it.IXIA (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into new article on Dee Time - There ought to be an article on Dee Time before we can even consider an article on an uncredited bit-part. There's probably a case for adding a few bits of info into Simon Dee but clearly it would all be much more appropriate for Dee Time. Basically, Lorna McDonald appeared in a classic sequence, but doesn't appear to have done anything else to make her famous or notable. Her claim of notability is on a level with, say, Emily Firmin, the Bagpuss title sequence girl (although Emily has more sources on her). It seems that pretty much everything that is known about Lorna McDonald is in relation to this title sequence. I see this as similar to having an article on the subject of a notable photograph - although the image/artwork may be famous, the sitter does not necessarily inherit notability merely for being in it. For example, Adam Perry - the chap in L'Enfant_(poster) - is of very dubious individual notability beyond his being in an Extremely Famous Photograph. Mabalu (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Mabalu that it might make sense to have an article on Dee Time, which did have huge viewing figures, and that would be the sensible place to put this information if we tidy up the refs a bit. I've just just made a quick check online and of The Times archive and The Guardian archive and can't see any reference to McDonald – the archive includes the 1960s when she would have been in circulation, so I can't see any evidence she meets notability guidelines for a standalone article. Unless and until Dee Time is written, she is mentioned on Simon Dee which is where this information could sit. Libby norman (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge I agree that it's the series that seems to have been notable and would support a merge to an article on that. EBY (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There are quite a few disparate comments here and it took me a while to go through all of it. I will not address every point (that would double the size of this already long AfD). The arguments brought forward by Carrite, Drmies, and DGG are very compelling. I don't think anybody would like to argue that kidnapping is an essential characteristic of Islamism (or political Islam, or however one would like to call it), nor that only Islamists kidnap. Hence, "kidnapping in Islamism" is OR/SYNTH. As pointed out by Chillum, the available sources lists/discuss events, but do not address the generalized topic of "kidnapping in Islamism" as such. I could imagine that "Kidnapping in terrorism" could be a valid article, but that should really be started from scratch. Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping in Islamism

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

Delete: Original research. This is an essay. or consider merging it with Kidnapping in terrorism. There is nothing unique about kindapping in islamism that is different from kindapping in terrorism in general. DrSultan85 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC) blocked sock--Shrike (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)per this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Determinator.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment Kidnapping by Islamists in Algerian and the Philippines undertaken as a lever to force the governments of France and Germany to alter their foreign / military stance toward the Islamist government of Syria/Iraq seems unique and differnet to the world's major news organizations.ShulMaven (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kidnapping in terrorism does not exist as an article as such. It is a redirect.

Comment ETA kidnapped and killed Miguel Ángel Blanco. Let us stop trying to show islamists as exclusive terrorists. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the article's subject confusing. Much of the kidnapping is actually slavery by another word. And some of it is criminal activities and nothing else. The current title, "Kidnapping in Islamism", seems also overly broad for an article that mentions only very recent or current events. It needs a title chance if it is to be kept in its current restricted form. Maybe "Islamist kidnapping"? And if its content were to be expanded in scope and time period a title like "Kidnapping in Islamic culture" might be more appropriate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer Non admin Close as Keep by WritingEnthusiast14 was reopened by Drmies .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly merge with an article about kidnapping: My primary reason is that this article is only using sources in which either the terrorists themselves or experts on the area of terrorism are referenced to. But what does islam say about kidnapping? In my opinion, this would be something which might give an addition to this article which is useful for the reader and give good insightful information, you will have to use an academic source though, but the article is too much focused on things which other articles also talk about. My second reason is the title, "kidnapping in islamism" is far from neutral. I agree with DrSultan85 as a non-muslim that this is shedding a bad light on muslims, as the title of this article already seems to claim that this is some common practice in islam, which I highly doubt it is. Just my opinion. Bokareis (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"shedding a bad light on muslims" is not a reason to delete an article! Kidnapping IS and always has been a common practice in Islam (by Muslims, not by "Islamists"), though the article's restricted aims (dealing only with recent events) does not reflect that. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Kidnapping is a common practice in Islam" is a pretty disgusting statement--not just POV, but disgusting. Do we need to prove that kidnapping is common practice throughout the world? Or do you have a reliable, objective source that explains this, and how this supposed love for kidnapping is somehow essentially Muslim? What blog will you point to? Drmies (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above. Kidnapping is kidnapping! There is nothing special about Islam and kidnapping. The article hasWP:POV issues and as does the title. Last AfD was kept for procedural reasons, and the nominator withdrew the nomination. Valid concerns were raised there as well. The Determinator p t c 22:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Nominator blocked indef Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Determinator. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In an article of this title, I would expect some discussion of how these groups justify what they are doing in terms of Islamic law. But the discussion of motives is completely cynical. Of course there are Islamic laws relevant to kidnapping, so I cannot agree with the view that, "There is nothing special about Islam and kidnapping." Claimsworth (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (sock)[reply]

I think this can usefully be overhauled as Kidnapping in terrorism, which is currently a redirect. I think there's certainly something to be said about the use of kidnapping by terrorist groups, and Islamist ones have been in the news lately. However, as other users have pointed out, there's nothing about any of this that's especially specific to Islamist terrorists. Miguel Ángel Blanco by Basque separatists, Aldo Moro by the Brigate Rosse, some Army of God and other anti-abortion kidnappings... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability of the topic is clearly established by the references provided in the article, including for example the book "Islamic Terror Abductions in the Middle East" by Shay. The references discuss this topic as such, so it's not synthesis. The objections seem to be mainly about WP:NPOV, but that is not a reason to delete the article. Articles are supposed to be improved to accord with that policy, not be deleted. While kidnapping is a tactic that has been used by numerous armed groups throughout history, and there is not much essentially different about kidnappings by islamists versus those by people of other religions or ideologies, kidnappings by islamist groups have attracted attention as a specific phenomenon and been discussed in that way, which justifies having this article. In the same way, it could be justified to have an article on kidnappings in Colombia, bombings in Ireland, suicide attacks by Japanese in World War 2, and so forth, because these were significant phenomena even though numerous different groups, including many that are well-regarded by most people today, have used the same tactics. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article were changed to "kidnapping in terrorism" or something similar, as some editors have suggested, that likely would lead to a violation of WP:SYNTH. As it stands the topic of the article is notable in its own right. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's a good point. If the category exists in the literature, then we can have an article about it. That non-Muslims kidnap as well is really neither here nor there. Claimsworth (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All kidnapping is terrorism is one way or another. The above example of suicide Japanese bombers in WW2 is not relvant. As in WW2 there were not more bombings elsewhere. But in case of kidnappings there are more in Mexico than any other place in the world. Any material worth rescuing should be merged with kidnapping, the rest should be removed.

Category DOES NOT exist. I think reporting one book hardly establishes the category. ALL the other references relate to terrorism and one particular organization, and that is what makes it a WP:SYNTH Sammy1339 and Claimsworth, both of your points assume that category is establishes, when in fact neither of you have shown that the category is established. The Determinator p t c 02:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have wonder if this objection is meant seriously. There are headlines linking Islam and kidnapping all the time: Obama's Diplomacy by Twitter; Appeasing Radical Islam Invites a Result like the Nigerian Kidnappings, Kidnapping shows how France, despite opposition to Iraq war, is not immune to threats from radical Islam, Militants Seek Group Edict on Kidnappings (This is about a terrorist group that asked some Muslim clerics if is OK to kidnap). Prominent Sunni cleric says wartime kidnapping is permissible -- but hostages can't be killed, Kidnapping of diplomat un-Islamic, and Lebanon's top Shiite cleric bans kidnapping of foreigners. That's just a few examples, the tip of the iceberg. Claimsworth (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What Sammy and Claimsworth said. But also note the extent to which Islamist kidnappings are a geopolitical strategy. Islamist kidnappers in the Philippines and in Algeria have taken hostages from countries involved in the war against the self-declared Islamist caliphate in Syria/Iraq, threatening to kill them unless the governments of France and Germany withdraw their military fromm fighting ISIS. This is not like crominal kidnapping for money. I am trying to encounter the arguments of those who are moving to delete. But this seems like a coherent category not only to me, but to the world's major news organizations {The Guardian]], Wall Street Journal, New York Times. It is a specific funding and political strategy pursued by self-proclaimed Islamist fighters whose shared strategy of kidnapping for financial/political reasons makes this a topic/category.ShulMaven (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go with delete on this one. Some of the stuff in there is worthy of an encyclopedia. A lot of it is just being used for hate-mongering. I am not 100% sure how this works. Some of these above references say Islam opposes kidnapping, or at least opposes killing POWs, that's what kidnapping during war is a POW. This article cites non of these references. Also all (at least the ones I'm familiar with) religions have similar views on kidnappings [Torah for Today: What the Torah says about kidnapping See Bible Judges 21: 10- 24. This hate-mongering and demonizing of one people must stop. My objection is slightly broader than those above. I think WP:POV is a big issue here. Although I agree OP and others, i think what's wrong with article goes beyond just WP:SYNTH 70.63.179.18 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC) — 70.63.179.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete to rename (sounds strange, no :?) Kidnapping in terrorism so that we can merge information from the kidnappings of ETA and the Red Brigades mentioned above. This way we will have respected a basic pillar of Wikipedia not making a selective approach on kidnapping as a terrorist tool, method and tactic. Am I clear enough? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions 70.63.179.18 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of sources. though, in general of course removal of all connection between islam and anything negative is best. maybe disperse the paragraphs of examples among parts of kidnapping related articles. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original POV essay. Pretty straightforward call, this is a textbook case of prohibited "Original Research" as it applies to history — a novel synthesized argument. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a sequence of Wiki-cliches stuck together. I can't even figure out what your point is. Claimsworth (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a pretty specific critique that I hope the closing administrator will appreciate. In short: Wikipedia is not the place for novel scientific or historical research. Encyclopedic topics should be reflected by presence in the scholarly literature somewhere. This is not. Nor is Wikipedia the place for political axe-grinding. This is a thinly disguised anti-"Islamist" screed, in my estimation. So it's a failure on two counts. Carrite (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're point is clear. So you don't like material that connects Islam to anything negative. Or you do actually think that no scholar has every connected Islamism and kidnapping? There are certianly plenty of hits for Islamism and kidnapping on JSTOR. There is no reason to restrict ourelves to scholarly writing. There is huge category of material that connects Islamists to terrorism, kidnapping, and so forth. That includes books, news stories, and other RS. You want to dismiss it all as "axe-grinding." But it certainly isn't original research. Claimsworth (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being much better sourced than I expected. That having been said, I'm not happy with the title. I would not be against a merge per Why should I have a User Name? Bearian (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom is a sock.Articles are normally only deleted for problems with content if they are unsalvageable issues of original research and neutrality problems can be solved through regular editing .The subject is notable now whether one has a separate article for Kidnapping in Islamism or merge this with a new general article of Kidnapping in Terrorism is not a reason for deletion.If there is issue with the title that can be subject to a requested move.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FARC the Colombian group has done a lot of kidnapping including the Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt that is documented in List of political hostages held by FARC and in Kidnappings in Colombia and similarly International child abduction in Mexico are are separate articles. Kidnapping in the United States even Kidnapping in Canada are separate articles .This is localized and hence have country specific articles but the groups like al-Qaeda and the ISIS, are regional to an extent global and are classified by religion .Please Political correctness is not a reason for deletion Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're going the PC route: islamophobia is not a reason for keeping. FARC is an organization--one single one. The US and Canada are, as you well know, individual countries. So is Mexico. There is no way in which "islamists" is a clearly defined entity on which you can pin a particular tactic. Carrite, and now Chillum as well, indicate quite clearly that the problem is not just the content: it is the very topic, as exemplified by its unacceptable title. The moment you rework the title to make it fit the content, you'll end up with something like Kidnappings done by groups who may or may not have subscribed, publicly or not, to some form of what some people call "Islamism", a highly controversial term used here only to function as a catchall for a wide variety of different events, done by different people/organizations in different places, for different reasons. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Carrite does your thinking for you. That explains a lot. Be honest. If these Islamist groups weren't really terrorists and kidnappers, would you be defending them? Are radical socialists really this sensitive to religious criticism? Claimsworth (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Claimsworth: Let's all of us please refrain from politicizing this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sammy1339. Actually, this isn't so much politicizing as playing the man, not the ball. Claimsworth, your suggestion is too revolting to warrant a response, and that Carrite does my thinking for me is prima facie ridiculous. You couldn't have done a better job discrediting yourself if you tried. That's all. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Actually, the Kidnappings in Colombia article discusses kidnappings not only by FARC but also by M-19, ELN, drug cartels, and others, which form a coherent phenomenon that would make it unreasonable to discuss them all separately. This is not an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFF, but your assertion that there is no precedent for discussing kidnappings by loosely related groups is incorrect. The issue is nothing to do with controversy or "islamophobia," it is that there has been widespread media and scholarly attention to the use of kidnapping as a tactic by islamist groups. If you find the term offensive, perhaps you would prefer "political islam," which however is just a synonym. The ideology itself has been the subject of thousands of books, academic papers, and other sources, and is indisputably shared by groups such as Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, and ISIL. It's not reasonable to delete the article on the grounds that the term might be controversial in some circles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Carrite says, this is OR in its combining two words as if they are somehow essentially connected. I mean, considering that "islamists" have a tendency to use AK-47s, and that many appear to have beards, I see two more articles ready for creation if this one stands. So what if it's a frequently used tactic for them? Lots of other entities do it as well, and that they kidnap people from "enemy countries"--well, that makes sense, since you wouldn't kidnap your friends. I wouldn't, at least. What's more, I object to this lumping together of organizations under what is essentially a non-neutral, POVish, vague term, as our article (fortunately) points out: Islamism#Definitions. To call one particular terrorist or group "Islamist" is one thing, but to throw them all together and say that they have this in common, that's quite another. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not OR, because independent sources have identified these groups as islamist and drawn a connection between the movement and the tactic of kidnapping. Contrary to what you suggest, the article does not assert that all islamist groups have this in common, only that it is a significant occurrence among islamist groups. As for the AK-47's and beards, I think the fallacy of this argument is that it conflates a culturally, politically, and otherwise significant phenomenon, the use of kidnapping by these groups, with superficial and irrelevant facts. But if there were enough significant coverage and discussion of these facts for an article, then yes, they would deserve one - and in point of fact the iconic use of AK rifles by jihadists is discussed in the article AK-47. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research by synthesis. While a series of events are documented by reliable sources the topic itself is not covered by reliable sources. The keep arguments need to address this policy issue. Chillum 00:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is the book mentioned above. There are also innumerable news articles that discuss the phenomenon in the context of particular events, as pointed out by Claimsworth above. One of many examples of news articles connecting islamism with the particular style of kidnapping associated with the movement is the beginning of this article: "The sickening scene is now all too familiar: a radical Islamist, dressed in black, standing above a Western prisoner, who is kneeling with his hands behind his back." --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic plenty of scholarly litarature [3] exist.--Shrike (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chillum and Drmies Hafspajen (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable subject. good sourcing, covers the subject at length.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Starting with the title: the article is not about Islam in general, but about a few contemporary groups of Islamic militants. What seems to be intended by using the word "Islamism" is an attempt to make a negative implication about Islam as a religion without actually saying so. Second, nothing here is unique to Islamic groups: kidnapping by terrorists is a fairly common part of their general practice. It's the result of the logic of terrorism, not the logic of religion. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone would object to an article entitled "tornados in Nebraska." Such a title would not imply that tornados were uniquely connected to Nebraska. Claimsworth (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You mean Tornados in Nebraska. If there are Tornados also in, say, Nevada or Florida but we make an article only covering Tornados in Nebraska and leave out the others, our readers would not think that Wikipedia is an objective, impartial, complete source of information. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think they would think that those articles still need to be written. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and wait. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Manning

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

Fall under too soon, her role in Rush is as a uncredited pit girl even! Wgolf (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of the characters she has played have names. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Not yet time for an article here. Its WP:TOOSOON and WP:NYA. Wikicology (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG or NACTOR. She has just played bit parts thus far. Cowlibob (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97 talk 03:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor spam. working every three or four years as an uncredited extra or a no-name one-line bit part is not a notable acting career. another BLP without RS that seems autobiographical, once again with a 1-subject original writer. IMDB is not RS. neither is one's booking-manager's website. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ñu

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

The subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO - not references given and can't find reliable sources. Karlhard (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think that there are some facts which can avoid the article Deletion.

The band was initially lead by José Carlos Molina and Rosendo Mercado. Rosendo is a pretty well-known musician in Spain. His following band Leño was included as the 13rd best Spanish rock band of all time according to Rolling Stone. Check: Top 50 Spanish rock bands of all time. Also he has achieved some gold records as a solo artist (and one with Leño). For example: Gold record for Veo, veo, mamoneo or Gold record Las Ventas (Gold record=disco de oro)
Ñu is the only predecessor ever found of folk metal. It is believed that Skyclad was the first folk metal ever as you can see in the folk metal article but that isn't actually true, you can check it on: A golpe de latigo on Rateyourmusic
I added some new references. The band has issued some albums in Japan and South Korea too as you can see on the issues on: Cuentos de ayer y de hoy on Rateyourmusic. Also this is the Spanish longest active rock band ever. This one is just in Spanish unfortunately: Rosendo, a Las Ventas con 'Vergüenza Torera'. --Batamamma (talk) 02:50 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Proper references from reputable sources like El País have been added after this AfD was started. Since the article is been reviewed, maybe they should have been included in this discussion before adding them to the article, but the fact is that the article no longer lacks references, and to me, it seems notable enough to keep.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 19:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Beresford

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

Unotable actor with only a few credits that he has had. Wgolf (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's more likely notable for his writing the new film Pride, which is getting very strong reviews (some of them summarized in our article about the film), and looks likely to be in line for award consideration at year's end. So if we can't find enough coverage right now, it might be more of a matter of WP:TOOSOON, by a few months. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-So are you leaning for delete? Granted if they are nominated for a Oscar or a Emmy in any category then I say they are notable (does not matter what cat either) Wgolf (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to defer my opinion while we see what substantive coverage comes up during the pendency of the AfD. There is quite a bit of coverage of Pride, not sure yet how much we can find about Beresford personally. (Here are a couple of interviews, for starters: [4][5]) Now I've found that he's also written a play called The Last of the Haussmans that was produced by the National Theatre [6] and has received all sorts of praise [7][8][9] (The Observer in 2012: "It is with disbelief that one discovers that The Last of the Haussmans is actor Stephen Beresford's first play. It is a knockout – entertaining, sad and outrageous. If he has more of this quality to write, he is going to be a major name.") So now it seems that he's written two distinct and notable works, which suggests personal notability to me. Not that the initial draft of the article hinted at any of this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Between them, the coverage Beresford got for The Last of the Haussmanns and has got so far for Pride seem to be just about enough for notability - and it looks as if there is probably more to come for Pride. He also appears to have been director of a production of Twelfth Night at the Albery Theatre about ten years ago which had a fair bit of rather mixed coverage at the time (this, for instance) and occasional mentions since. PWilkinson (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was finally able to dig up some biographical information. Given that he's written two clearly notable works (Last of the Haussmans doesn't yet have an article, but Google shows that it has been extensively reviewed and reported), I think we can say that he passes WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. without prejudice to retitling and/or the addition or redirects to handle transliteration issues j⚛e decker ^talk 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monther Alkabbani

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

This article is full of problems-none of the refs were reliable (they went to Twitter and a form, the "official' site went to Twitter) the birth info is odd (1970 and 1957!) and none of the books even have pages on here-too soon if ever. Wgolf (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Article obviously fails WP:GNG. All I can find with my search is facebook, twitter etc. Which can not establish the subject notability. Wikicology (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This writer has an article on the Arabic Wikipedia which I have just linked, showing a bunch of refs from, what seem like, reliable Arabic media. Seems like this nomination is another case of WP:BIAS and researching notability using the wrong language? Takeaway (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Takeaway (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': article should be rewritten, preferably by someone who understands Arabic. - Takeaway (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Its not bias when there was nothing linked there and the fact that when I tried finding him there was nothing I could find. Wgolf (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Quote from WP:BIAS: "Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and little incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic."
-Okay I think it needed a better term now then bias as when I saw the word bias I thought it was trying to say that I was wanting it to be deleted ha ha. Anyway-we will see what happens! Wgolf (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't help it that that is what it's called here on WP. But yeah, next time try looking for sources in the native language, or, as in this case, the native writing system. - Takeaway (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: subject of the article clearly fails WP:GNG. I found nothing to establish its notability. I have no Idea of how a subject that is obviously non-notable will suddenly become notable because some of its content is written in arabic. Rewritten those content in english cannot make him notable. WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Wikicology (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-That is true-there have been a few cases where the articles are linked to another language so then its "oh wow they are notable then" when in fact it is nearly the same case. (There is another person I think from Arabia that i have a AFD up for now that has a linked page to another language but is basically the same all links to unotable places) Wgolf (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The writer isn't notable because they have an Arabic wikipedia page, what I wrote was that on that page there seem to be references by reliable Arabic newspapers. This makes the writer notable, also for the English language wikipedia as per WP:BIAS. It's a very basic thing really. I see WP:GNG being used as an argument. I quote from WP:GNG: "Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English." - Takeaway (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I don't think is a good idea to assume that they are automatically notable here. I search through with his name in arabic, I see nothing than facebook, twitter, is own personal work and few RS. All of which are insufficient to pass WP:GNG here. I assume, there are more stringent in the English wikipedia than any other languge wikipedia because few people participates in those project, which could retard information verification by editors. In addition the source used in that language (Arabic Wikipedia) by the author of the article might even be entirely primary sources. This is an english wikipedia, all references must be provided to support every claims. Since he already have an article in Arabic wikipedia, I think that's ok for him. Every information there can be translated for use in english by its reader and not necessarily having an article here. But let see how it goes. Wikicology (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please understand, for the 3rd time I state: look at the references on the Arabic Wikipedia article and don't try looking for stuff in a language and writing that you don't understand. In the article in the Arabic Wikipedia, one can clearly and easily see that the references used are by Al Riyadh (newspaper) here, and by Al Watan (Saudi Arabia) newspaper here. And I also found this article by Al Watan. I really have no idea how you did your search because it is strange that nothing significant showed up with you. Apparently, even while I don't read Arabic at all, I have a nose for finding stuff which apparently, you don't because I found a large amount of Google results that are not at all "only facebook and twitter". I am also of the opinion that people who are unable to read Arabic, should not be involved in getting this article deleted. We just lack the ability to form a well-balanced opinion on this writer's notability. And as for expressing your personal opinion that "Since he already have an article in Arabic wikipedia, I think that's ok for him.", it is just that: a personal opinion, and not Wikipedia policy. If the writer is notable, he is notable also for the English Wikipedia. One more ref I found is this book review by Al Jazeera. Takeaway (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having a page on another language Wikipedia doesn't make a topic notable. For example, people could be discussing the deletion of the Arabic equivalent of this article right now and they might think it is notable since there is an article in English. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that here. All that was said was that the article there had sources. Look at the sources there. - Takeaway (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject is notable, linked to an arabic page approved there. It just need improvement in the English Wikipedia. In Google search is shows a lot of results that are not social media. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 00:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Takeaway has found four in-depth sources in Arabic. I am One of Many (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be a transliteration problem. Searching under the English title of one of his books, I find that Library of Congress transliterates his name as Mundhir Qabban̄i -- see the author listing for him and the VIAF listing. (although I do not read Arabic, I do know that "al" is a frequent prefix to names and that the names also need to be searched without it; I also know there's frequent variability in transcribing a arabic letter as either K or Q). I see his books have 56 WorldCat library holdings, which is significant for current Arabic fiction in the limited geographic distribution of libraries covered by worldcat . I suggest the article be moved to the LC version as a standard, on the basis of the VIAF record DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Poonanadha

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

For some reason this guy has been listed as a "living person" for a few years despite the fact it says he died. Anyway it seems to be a essay type biography on here with no references as all though (so no references on your essay?) Not sure how much importance this guy is though (not a expect on that country at all)-tried to google him but basically they all linked back to here! Wgolf (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notablity. If I try to ignore the fact that it was written like an WP:ESSAY, the fact that it fails WP:GNG is too obvious to ignore. Wikicology (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97 talk 03:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TISFAT

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

No evidence of notability of this software, and a Google search turned up nothing but download sites, message boards, and youtube videos. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This software appears to have been completely ignored by reliable secondary sources, which are generally required for notability. Mz7 (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some interesting sources showed up on Google Books search but satisfying GNG takes more than that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the description for the first GBooks result states: "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." So that one book strikes me as having a WP:CIRC issue. Mz7 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Fund

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

No verification; no evidence of notability. Searching is difficult because the name is so generic and the article provides nothing to use as a disambiguator. But I did search, and I could not find anything relevant except social media. PROD was removed without comment by an IP. That IP also deleted the only three links provided in the article: a website, TheStudentFund.org, which does not exist; and a Twitter account and Facebook page, both of which say "coming soon." So it's possible the Fund does not even exist, or does not exist yet. If that's the case this article approaches being a hoax, because of its claims to have branches at 21 universities in North America, Europe, and Australia. MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This organization is so new that it is highly unlikely to have any level of significant coverage (I did do a search of "The Student Fund" Saint Andrews, as that appears to be the university where it was founded, with no results). The Facebook page says this fund was established 1 September 2014 and the very first tweet from this fund says it is "Officially launching in 2015". Thus, this topic appears to be WP:TOOSOON and doesn't meet WP:GNG as of right now. This link may also provide some context. Altamel (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Looper,Alton Tower

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

This article was created recently on the support of only one source, which is a personal website. In a discussion at WikiProject Amusement Parks, the existence of roller coaster articles with very little to no coverage in secondary sources has brought their "notability" into question. I don't believe these should have standalone articles without the coverage. At most, perhaps they can exist as a passing mention in their parent amusement park article if some acceptable coverage can be found. Also while the content in the article is not an "exact" plagiarized copy of the source, it's too close for comfort. GoneIn60 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name of page changed to read Alton Towers not Alton Tower. Wording now changed on new page to make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maccer (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article name isn't even spelt correctly. Szzuk (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've restored the AFD tag after it was removed by Maccer, who is the original author. Note also that the article has been moved to Thunder Looper,Alton Towers (with an s). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, adequate sourcing has been provided to warrant an article (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Hunter

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

This page was created by a sock of User:Fairyspit who was banned on April 7, 2014‎, the article was created September 13, 2014‎, clearly AFTER Fairyspit was banned. This is grounds for speedy delete WP:G5 but the tag kept getting removed by IPs and by another user and finally was denied after saying the article was created prior to the ban but as you can see...it wasn't. This has nothing to do with notability, this has everything to do with the fact that allowing this article to be kept is allowing the socks to get away with this behavior. Having dealt with these socks for a while, they have an irrational obsessive behavior towards Benedict Cumberbatch and will create articles solely to link it to it, Blacks Club, Lyndsey Turner, and now Sophie Hunter (because she is Cumberbatch's current girlfriend). In regards to Lyndsey Turner, it got so bad that Turner contacted the OPMS team and told them that because of the socks stalkerish and obsessive behavior, she didn't want a Wikipedia page about her. This article should not be kept. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The article subject is notable and the article contains no inappropriate content. There haven been multiple accounts editing the article, most likely including socks, as well as several legitimate editors. WP:Banning policy "does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)"; allowing the page to remain, with whatever Cumberbatch-related material the banned editor included now expunged, is the most appropriate solution. Playing whack-a-mole with the banned editor has reached the disruptive level -- for example, yesterday a long-term, productive editor, who happens to live in the same metro area as Fairyspit and apparently has a slight editing overlap with them, was blocked as a sock, with scores of their image uploads deleted and many other edits undone, with the blocking admin for the moment unavailable to address the issue; Lady Lotus has removed content from this article declaring the Boston Globe an unreliable source; and, not for the first time, LL has mass-nominated for G5 contributions that clearly predate the ban. Sometimes a selective response is better than a flamethrower. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say the Boston Globe was unreliable, I said the peerage was unreliable. The IP added back a whole slew of information that was removed for a reason, the Boston Globe was an innocent bystander. This is about Sophie Hunter not about the SPI, and I don't know how Exec8 got on the list, but that's not what we are discussing. I request you stick to the topic at hand. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Images can be un-deleted mind you...LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the whole sock thing, she doesn't seem that notable either. The majority of her acting career includes roles like "The Girlfriend", and "Witch". She hasn't occured in more than one episode in a series and hasn't done anything significant in film or television which fails WP:ENTERTAINER. She's also directed The Terrific Electric, and The Isis Project, both of which are non-notable projects, in wiki terms anyway and the majority of her references are either primary sources or mere mentions. So it fails WP:GNG also. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The acting career is unimpressive in the extreme ( Ubu Roi at the Battersea Arts Centre!), the only claim to notability is the Samuel Beckett award & I don't think thats enough.TheLongTone (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think the sock should be a debate topic here. The page has been protected by Mike V. In addtion, article are not keep/deleted on the basis of who edit it but strictly on the basis of notability. Am neutral for now. Wikicology (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous references, meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. As has been stated, her career is unimpressive in the extreme and she has no more claim to notability than a million other middling theatre directors in the world. The only reason the article was created in the first place is because the subject has a very famous friend, and a certain banned editor has made it a project to create Wiki pages for everyone he knows. Many of the references cited are sketchy, like the subject's own CV, pages from her company's website, her agent's website, and so forth. The more impressive sources cite information that is not important enough to make her notable, such as the New York Times article that mentions her role as a witch in Macbeth in passing. Avianax (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP' She may have had bit parts as an actress (still, she was credited, she is not some kind of extra-for-rent) but she has directed plays reviewed by the Boston Globe (http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2012/02/10/entrancing-version-shackleton-tale/HrBKlbUDkEodjw485XMskK/story.html) and the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/theater/reviews/69s-at-bam-harvey-theater-review.html?_r=1&) among others. And these were shows in known venues like the Barbican Centre where she won a Samuel Beckett Award for directing and writing her play. Her French-language album with songs written by Guy Chambers is also available on iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/isis-project/id68244687) and has been reviewed by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4556821.stm) and the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/may/25/popandrock1) among others. Lady Lotus, she didn't direct The Isis Project as you have said in your argument as she was the vocalist of all the songs in that album and even starred in some music videos for it. And Avianax she wasn't just mentioned in passing in the other New York Times article if you check, it was a review of The Shackleton Project. And an actor's CV from her agent's website is a reliable source, despite it being considered a primary source. But there are plenty of secondary sources cited in the page to establish her notability. So, yes, she is notable. And I agree with users Tomsculler, Hullaballoo and Wikicology. It's about the article. And it doesn't reference any famous friends of hers. The page is about her not her relations. The socks have already been banned. This discussion is about the notability of the subject, and it has been clearly established with reliable primary and secondary sources as seen in the page. TheVerge24601 (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TheVerge24601. Except not sure if we need agent website as source, enough other sources I think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. Check out the 300+ pageviews each day, again not an official reason for keeping, but (for me) an indication of strong interest on the part of our readers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily (Slovak singer)

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

Her name being so common a proper internet search is nearly impossible but I did try combing her name and the one album listed here and was unable to find and coverage in reliable sources. With only one apparent release the subject still would not meet MUSICBIO unless anyone can argue that 'Discovery of year 2004' is a significant award, and is able to verify that it was awarded to her. J04n(talk page) 16:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sadly no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 11:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 11:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 12:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – in the absence of established notability. As the nominator has pointed out, MUSICBIO is not met. C 679 16:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Randykitty (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lynchings of the Frenches of Warsaw

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

An isolated event from old newspapers, with no historical, legal, or otherwise consequences, and no modern attention. Shall we start digging old newspapers and will wikipedia with oldtime news without discrimination? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. Clearly, those in 1876 believed this horrific event to be notable, for there to be so much coverage of it (8 references listed, so far, including Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia newspapers, which qualifies as national coverage). While lynchings were widespread, they were far from normal, since their crimes shocks the conscience, just as ISIS did with their beheadings. Lynchings are a stain on the moral superiority of the KKK, and other racist groups in America. By slaying extrajudicially, with mob justice, the Klan turned what could have been tried in a court of law, into another crime of passionate racial hatred. Since lynchings are a special way for racist whites to murder, and with the many other sources separate from the subject material, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", this makes this article suitable for a stand-alone article, and therefore, should be kept.WG:GNG Sarahrosemc (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mentioned in the 1990 book Racial Violence in Kentucky, 1865-1940: Lynchings, Mob Rule, and "Legal Lynchings" (ISBN 9780807115367, published by LSU Press). But it is just barely that, a mention. These were horrible crimes, but I simply don't see any evidence that individual lynchings meet notability standards absent wider attention or legal, social, or historical impacts. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Horrible as this sounds, lynchings were very common in that commonwealth back in the late 1800s. I don't see how this one was notable, except that a husband and wife were victims. Weak delete. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Wright (in the book I mentioned above) found this worth mentioning only because it was a lynching of blacks in retribution for the murder of another black (where the majority of lynchings were ostensibly predicated by crimes against whites). But even then, he didn't consider this a unique situation, and gave it merely a passing mention. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NTEMP, people: once notable, forever notable. This was discussed in sources in the 1800s, and as such it meets WP:GNG. The event has been discussed by XX century sources, which shows WP:PERSISTENCE. That there were other similar events is irrelevant for notability. Notable does not mean unique.--cyclopia^speak! 16:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. So often now I see this reasoning that "notable" equals "uncommon" or "exceptional". But perfectly ordinary things can be quite notable, if people have considered them important—worthy of note, notable. And very unusual things can be non-notable, if no one cares about them. Everyking (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning of Cyclopia. And actually lynching were not that normal, at least according to one history I read some years ago. One major object of an encyclopedia is to be able to look something up when one finds a bare mention of it is a book or other document. Using Squeamish Ossifrage's theory we would have very few modern music articles. --Bejnar (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not, however, the standard by which we judge notability and inclusion. Bare mentions are not "significant coverage" in the sense of WP:N. The 1876 coverage is problematic as concerns WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS. It is absolutely true, as cyclopia observed, that notability does not expire; in Wikipedia's sense of the term, this event, while tragic, was never notable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable then, notable now. Read what Cyclopia wrote. Everyking (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folllowing material copied from a very confusing AFD started on a cut and paste copy of this article at Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French. Dennis started the new AFD and I have added the "Delete" to the start of his nomination comment. Meters (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nkyviews.com makes up the bulk of the sources, which is a self-published website owned and maintained by one person. The other cite, a book, is searchable on Google, and when I searched for the "fact" in the lead "best nigger in the country", I got nothing. The sourcing is so radically subpar, I can't see how we can publish this. I would also note that lynchings were (unfortunately) common and this hasn't differentiated itself as particularly unique, enough so to pass WP:CRIME. Dennis 19:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Within minutes Dennis suggested deleting two of my articles, which I worked for hours on. Hey Dennis, did you even read this article, before suggesting to delete it? Sarahrosemc (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly, I read the source material, which is problematic. Using self-published websites to prove the lynching of someone is very, very problematic. Don't take it personal, I just ran across the articles on new article patrol. Some articles get improved, some get tagged, some get nominated for deletion. I don't know you, so it can't be personal. Dennis 19:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the sources link to the self-published website, that site purports to accurately reproduce contemporary reports from secondary sources (newspapers). While I would prefer to see scans (rather than transcriptions) of the papers, I note that the author could have easily cited these sources without linking to the transcriptions on nkyviews.com, as Wikipedia does not require that sources be on-line. I feel that the sourcing is adequate. Pburka (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He was, in the estimation of Warsaw whites, "the best nigger in the country." Page 98-99. George Wright's Racial Violence in Kentucky, 1865-1940. The sentence begins on the bottom right of page 98, and ends on the top left of page 99. It's there. That's one accusation down.

It's also notable because lynching is a very specific weapon used by racist whites against blacks. While there were bunches, it also wasn't as "common" as the above comments make you'd believe. Also, since it was happening in the Northern part of Kentucky, that suggests that racist vigilante justice was practiced all throughout the state. Being close to the Mason-Dixon line didn't wane the support of racial hatred, and may have in fact, intensified it. Sarahrosemc (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell you is that I looked at the book, and it wasn't there. Perhaps it is a different ISSN than what you listed, you didn't give the ISSN, but once it fails verification, the onus is on you to provide more information in the citation to it CAN be verified. It isn't enough to claim a cite, it has to be verifiable, via WP:V. Dennis 2¢ 22:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See http://books.google.com/books?id=QAL5c1vECVkC&pg=PA99#v=onepage&q&f=false. It's exactly where Sarahrosemc indicated. Pburka (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, consider speedy. Irrespective of the contents of the article, this is a direct fork of The Lynchings of the Frenches of Warsaw (note the plural), which was listed at AFD on the 23rd. If the earlier-created article is deleted at AFD, this would be eligible for a G4 speedy; if not, it is a duplicate fork, and eligible for A10 speedy. Recreating articles is not the way to avoid concerns raised in the deletion process. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since both articles were created by the same user, it's not a fork. It's just a newbie mistake. I suggest speedily redirecting this title to the other. (The correct title should probably be something like Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French.) Pburka (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Squeamish Ossifrage's delete was for the duplicate copy of the page, which is now just a redirect to this page. Pburka (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So... make a Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French, and have them link to both? I'll read on this, and compile them somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I made the Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French page, and had the others redirect to there. I kept the articles of deletion part at the top, and it directs to here. The article was poorly titled. Grammatically didn't seem right. It's better now. Sarahrosemc (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense that just because I wanted a better titled article, that I'm accused of some type of fraud... That's your mindset; not mine. Folks can vote against others for the most arbitrary of reasons, and I didn't want my article to be flunked out of existence just because of the title. I still believe Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French is a better title, and hope that we can change it, after this page passes, which I'm not sure if that can be done. I have a right to blank out my own page, and it wasn't to avoid this discussion, because I would welcome this discussion on the Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French page as well.

Also, this article passes WP:NOTTEMPORARY WP:CRIME WP:INDEPTH WP:LASTING. While not an infinite supply of sources, compared to today's events, for an 1800s event, there's many different newspapers that printed about this incident. The lasting effects of a lynching is clearly one that racist whites used to intimidate all Black folks, not just the ones being lynched. Lynchings are significant because, first of all it's a murder, and second, it's a murder weapon used by sick oppressors, to not only punish those who are killed, but to scare the entire Black population into submission, so they wouldn't look up into white people's eyes, whenever they walked down the street. Reconstruction would fail in 1875 with the compromise between the Tilden v. Hayes election. So Benjamin and Mollie French were murdered 4 years after the Freedman's Bureau was disbanded, and only 1 year after the Federal Troops stopped occupying the South. Once Reconstruction failed, America would continue in the Nadir Era of Race Relations up until the 1950s. Sarahrosemc (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)NorthAmerica1000 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hatting the procedural close for the other AfD, a bit out of context here

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural close Had the nomination been provided the time, more than 36 minutes, to have the research that would have prepared the community for a deletion discussion, it would reflect the edit comment in the first and only edit made before nomination, "changed title from Lynchings to Lynching", and rather than WP:BITE the new editor, would have provided to the new editor the technique for moving an article from one title to another. Since this article is already at AfD with the older "Lynchings" title, a 2nd AfD is confounding. Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End of material copied from the second AFD (started on the cut and paste copy) Meters (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Unscintillating's "procedural close" was for the second AFD, on the cut and pasted copy of the article, not for this AFD. Meters (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have procedurally closed the second AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lynching of the Frenches of Warsaw. !Votes and comments from that discussion have been moved herein (diff1, diff2). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With multiple references this easily passes WP:GNG, and the mention in a book demonstrates its lasting significance. The fact that this well-researched article is up for deletion is troubling to me. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability does not expire — I was sharing an interesting text with some friends recently which they enjoyed too. It was written by Cato the Elder over two thousand years ago. In any case, it seems easy to find more modern sources such as this and that. Andrew (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historical. seems to have sources. U.S. civil rights history should be preserved since much of it was covered up --of course it will be hard to find dozens of sources for the less well-known events. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The purpose of the notability rules is so that editors aren't tempted to create articles about subjects that cannot be properly sourced. I don't agree with, "Once notable, always notable." But we should be building the encyclopedia up, not deleting well-sourced material. Claimsworth (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, of all things, WP:NOTNEWS (which is a way of articulating the persistence-of-coverage part of WP:EVENT). These sources are mostly from a couple of days after it happened; it gets a brief mention in the Wright source as an example of a broader principle. We could mention this in a broader article on lynching, which is basically what Wright does. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary. sourced well, easily passes GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, article kept. Doesn't really matter who closes it. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mtevandidi

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

Does not conform to Wikipedia standards: huge problems with formatting, requires lots of work before achieving a reasonable standard. in the current form it should not show in the main namespace. Deletion or Incubation/Userfication. kashmiri ^TALK 16:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: The article is a mess. Fails WP:GNG.

Keep in view of Amatulic's edits. The article is pretty good now. Wikicology (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is that of a reasonably well known wine grape from the country of Georgia. The grape does have a couple of reasonable hits in Google Scholar. The article is a horrible mess, and should be stubbified in the same way any other wine grape article starts out (see how Plavac Mali or Dobricic got started, for example), but the topic should remain. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through the article and shortened it significantly, removing unnecessary details, unformatted data tables, and other irrelevant cruft, did some formatting and broke up the article into logical sections. Much work still remains, but at least the article is now readable and informative. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - withdrawing nomination in view of Amatulic's recent edits. Adding a few maintenance tags, though. Thanks! kashmiri ^TALK 22:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For procedural reasons, Wikicology's nod to keep is needed before I could close this discussion (as normal withdrawal or Speedy keep). kashmiri ^TALK 22:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thank you so much Kashmiri. Now you have my nod as Keep. I appreciated the ping. I never kept the page and this discussion on my watch. Had it been I did, I would have been very much aware of the of the article improvement. also a big thanks to Amatulic for the great work on it. Wikicology (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep. No need to leave this open. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to dying-and-rising god. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of dying or rising deities

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

Article is a POV fork and also an OR magnet. The "dying-and-rising god" idea has long been rejected by scholars, but a "list" like this allows POV-pushers to add material without citing sources and then claim "well, I'm only adding this figure to the dying gods list; I'm not claiming they rose from the dead". A move to List of dying gods might be acceptable, but can anyone find a source from the last 20 years that actually discusses the concept of "dying but not resurrecting gods" as a group? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far as I know Frazer, James George (1890) The Golden Bough is still highly regarded among scholars. --Bejnar (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The general topic is notable, albeit disputed — see "The Dying and Rising God", for example. If this is a fork or spinoff from the main article, dying-and-rising god, then reversion would be best done by merger not deletion per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, since the topic is disputed (already essentially rejected?), no deity should be included in a "list" like this without prose elaboration and a source. The article itself already includes several examples that are discussed in some detail (and most of those are, inappropriately, not pointed out to not fit the supposed template). Inclusion of more examples in the main article might be appropriate, but inclusion of a list of names can't really be defended given the circumstances. I don't mind your WP:PRESERVE rationale, in case someone wants to actively go out and find sources and elaboration for all of these examples, but by "merge" I assume you don't mean we should just transpose the current list into the main article without further investigation? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually used this article a while back and it was helpful to me, although I agree the quality is pretty bad and there is a serious problem with the lack of elaboration since it is not exactly clear what "dying" or "rising" means for a deity. (e.g. Persephone could be argued to be dying-and-rising, or not.) Nevertheless it is a list of examples of a notable concept, and whether or not the usefulness of that concept is supported by recent scholarly literature is irrelevant. Since there are currently no "rising" deities in the list, I wouldn't oppose moving it to "List of dying deities." --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have boldly moved the article to List of dying deities. St Anselm (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, moves during AfD can cause confusion with the links at the top of the discussion, etc. Therefore, it's usually best not to do this, per WP:AFDEQ. I've now moved it back. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unscintillating (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy on request Fails WP:V, so there is nothing to merge. Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list and these are all blue links with plenty of sources in the linked articles. The first of them, for example — Tammuz_(deity) — seems to contain ample support for inclusion here. WP:V only requires sourcing for quotations and controversial statements. Pages are not required to provided sources for every word as matter of rote busy-work. Please justify your reference to WP:V as it seems inappropriate. Andrew (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I recall, a primary duty of a lede is to define its topic. As a reader, it is not my job to determine for myself the meaning of the topic. IMO, this is a (your term next) "worthless" article. If there is anything here worth salvaging, it requires a rewrite. As for lists and WP:V, you might want to look at the WT:V talk page regarding wp:prominent figures for Elizabethtown, KY. As for what WP:V requires, WP:MINREF has a good list. Yes, articles do not require sources in all cases...IMO, this is not one of them. Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content might be unverifiable, but most of it is fine. There will be many sources confirming that Jesus and Xipe-Totec die in their respective mythologies. So this is reason to improve the article perhaps, but not to delete it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRVE ("there will be many sources") applies to wp:notability, not WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asserting that most of the information there is verifiable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike inline citations, an editor's opinion that sources exist does not allow readers to verify the content of the article. Again, this is not at all like wp:notability, which is not a content policy and where wp:notability is not defined by the article. Here is text from the nutshell from WP:V:

This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up...

Unscintillating (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Readers are easily able to check the list entries by following the blue links. This process is easier than following inline citations which are often offline. The pages that they point too, such as Tammuz_(deity), readily show that the entries are just not made up. If the reader is still sceptical they can then inspect the sources on those pages. The list thus amply satisfies its main purpose of being an aid to navigation and the reader would be less well-informed without it. Andrew (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this "blue link" hypothesis for the first three, and I found that none are identified in the target article as either a "rising deity" (still no definition has been stated for this concept) or a "dying deity". Thus the hypothesis is rejected. The first one, Tammuz (deity), links to [life-death-rebirth deity], which if one knows how to find the edit history of redirects one can find the theory of why a Wikipedia editor made that connection. There is no one anywhere (I hope) that confuses Wikipedia with a reliable source, so blue links fail the policy WP:V#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it; which states, "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly." At best, once a reader has found and followed the blue link, the process of looking for a relevant citation begins anew. Thus it is no surprise that the WT:V consensus is that blue links are not an acceptable substitute for inline citations. Given that an editor has moved the current topic and we are discussing both a redirect and a new topic, this is further evidence that the original topic was made up and should be deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share your difficulty. When I go to Tammuz (deity), I see that the first section is called "Ritual mourning" and concerns the annual death and rebirth of the god. Death and rebirth seems synonymous with rising and dying and so all is clear. The first source supports this by talking of "the dead and resurrected god Tammuz (Sumerian Dumuzi)". This all seems to check out fine and there is not the slightest case for deletion. Andrew (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dying-and-rising god as being a content fork of that and also both articles are size wise small to accommodate easily. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content fork, because there is a difference between "dying-and-rising gods", and a list of dying or rising deities. Unscintillating (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Dying-and-rising god. There is plenty of scholarship on the topic; see that article. It would be nice to have a citation to a work for each deity. --Bejnar (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two topics at this AfD, neither of which is "List of dying-and-rising gods". Which is the topic that you would merge? Can the other be deleted? Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge List of dying or rising deities since renamed to List of dying deities to Dying-and-rising god. What other article are @Unscintillating: taking about? --Bejnar (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is clear. When I said "topics", those were the two. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An indiscriminate list of Gods who happen to have one common trait. Aerospeed (Talk) 16:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Schlaefer

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

Has not garnered the necessary secondary sources for notability as a professional foosball player per WP:GNG Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, I basically just see social media links, not enough to warrant an article Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Mr. Schlaefer has gained notoriety in the Foosball world, not a well-covered sport, not only playing as a profession player, as shown here [10] qualifying under Wikipedia:Notability (sports) but also has had an important impact with the design of the table top game as shown here [11]. Does the article need improvement Yes. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per WP:GNG, No reliable sources mentions him as Foosball player. Moreover created by SPA, my final vote will be delete.Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- In many of these Afd discussions a reviewer claims that references exist to demonstrate notability but yet does not insert the references into the article. Yes, the article needs improvement and it could be kept if there were references inserted to establish notability. The existence of references 'somewhere' doesn't establish notability. User:Shoessss ref 2 is a dead link. Bfpage |leave a message 02:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of ITF Women's Circuit events. The consensus now seems clear for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Izida Cup

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

Contested PROD. Fact is, the article is about a tennis competition which fails the article guidelines of the tennis project. It states: "from 2008 onwards the ITF Women's $50,000–$100,000+ tournaments are considered notable. From 1978–2007 the threshold for notability in the women's ITF circuit is a $25,000 event." The "Izida Cup" is not applicable, as it only became a $25,000 event after 2007 (in fact, the tournament only started in 2009 as a $10,000 competition). As a note, any player winning a 25K event on the ITF Women's Circuit would also not be notable. Jared Preston (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, probably to ITF Women's Circuit#List of events. [changed from Keep or Redirect]. I removed the PROD; i am not connected to the article and don't recall how I came to notice the PROD. But I don't like the brightline rule asserted to by a WikiProject's guideline (which is merely an Essay, not a Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia guideline) in the deletion nom, that X dollars is okay for a 2007 event but not for a 2008 or 2009 event. That rule is okay for guiding a Wikiproject's article creation process, but WikiProject guidelines don't control notability; wp:GNG policy does. Here, NO ASSERTION of wp:BEFORE has been made, i.e. no search has been done for GNG sources? And, why not respond to this request for discussion at the article talk page? Okay, well, this AFD is open now, that is the response i guess. But, at a minimum even if GNG not met by sources when searched for, redirecting to some List of ITF Women's Circuit events would be better than eliminating this article. The redirect would preserve the edit history and allow for recreation of article if/when GNG is clearly met. We have obligation to editors to preserve credit for work done. Unnecessary deletions destroy credit, drive away editors, undermine success of the project. :( Keep or redirect: good; deletion bad. Especially when no research done. --do ncr am 01:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I created List of ITF Women's Circuit events, List of ATP Challenger Tour events, and List of ITF Men's Circuit events, and updated the Tennis wikiproject's notability guideline essay to link to those. Lists provide useful complement to corresponding categories and navigation templates, per wp:CLT. --do ncr am 11:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that del nominator's comment: "As a note, any player winning a 25K event on the ITF Women's Circuit would also not be notable" is not true. They may not be assumed by the wikiproject to be automatically notable, but I am sure that most top women tennis players are winners of ITF Women's Circuit tour events, and are quite notable! Likewise, the wikiproject guideline essay establishes that the wikiproject deems some but not all events to be automatically notable, but cannot be taken to mean that others cannot be notable. --do ncr am 12:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have been understood. Of course the likes of Maria Sharapova, Serena Williams et al are notable even if they didn't win such a tournament. In fact, they have won higher-ranked tournaments! Obviously I am talking about automatic notability, and since there is barely any prose in the article of the tournament in question (as admittedly there isn't about many tennis tournaments, but there you go...), there isn't much savable about it. Even if the article was deleted, it could be restored if the event was to be notable in the future. Anyway, there is nothing generally notable about the Izida Cup. It is one of the second lowest-ranked tournaments on the women's professional circuit. Our (WikiProject Tennis) guidelines are by no means policy, but as far as it comes to inner-project guidelines on the creation of articles, they are very clear. Nothing here retrospective, even when the article was created in 2011 – the event wasn't notable. Many of the creator's articles on tournaments were deleted for this reason, but that too is beside the point. Redirect it if you like, I'm also not really bothered, but as our colleague Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) quite rightly once pointed out, if some new user were to see this article, he/she may think that other $25,000 ITF tournaments are notable too, and create a shed-load of similar ones, but they are not. My final say on the matter, in case that was a question aimed in my direction, why I didn't source the article to try to keep it, is why should I? It's not notable whatever source I find to cite a claim in the article. It's just a line of information about what's in the infobox with a list of former winners, who, of course, aren't all even notable themselves. So, if someone wants it (the article) kept, then they should show it really does meet the trump-all WP:GNG. Jared Preston (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i think this is ready to be closed as Redirect. I think no one wants to develop the Izida Cup article, and I accept Jared Preston's view it's probably one of the least important events. I think Izida Cup can be represented just by its entry (with a reference) in ITF Women's Circuit#List of events, and Izida Cup can be redirected to there. Meeting GNG is not required to be a list-item. Any other mini-stubs on ITF Women's Circuit events could be merged and redirected the same way, without being PRODed or AFDed, saving the original edit history in case someone chooses to develop more with GNG-type sources. --do ncr am 19:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would disagree with a redirect. I could be wrong but I think most (if not all) these tiny non-notable tournaments get deleted, not redirected. Maybe someone can check on that. They also get fully listed at places like 2013 ITF Women's Circuit (January–March) and don't really need separate lists. The created List of ITF Men's Circuit events is simply a redirect. And there are reasons why limitations were put on the ladies $25,000 tournaments that are too detailed to get into here. You are correct about GNG always superseding any guideline/essay. The trouble is that using GNG would probably also disallow almost all ladies ITF events...even if they're $100,000 tournaments. We have gone over and above to lower the standards of inclusion to $35,000 and above, so that 99.9% of the time there is simply no question of it being notable. Exceptions always happen... that's the wikipedia way and why we have GNG policy to take care of those exceptions. This tournament is not one of the extremely rare exceptions. Unless the ITF changes this tournament's status it will never become notable. And the $35,000/$50,000 limit will probably be increased in the futures since it coincides directly with the value of the men's events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, about the women's ITF events it doesn't seem right to have multiple articles for some date-tournament-specific tournaments, say 2013 Blossom Cup, e.g. 2013 Blossom Cup – Singles and 2013 Blossom Cup – Doubles, and to have all of the events listed in list-type articles like 2001 ITF Women's Circuit, 2002 ITF Women's Circuit, etc. Why not keep those year-specific list articles but why not also have tournament-specific list articles? It is the same material organized differently. If the year info is notable, then the same info can be organized by tournament. And, the tournament articles can naturally collect appropriate references. If a given tournament is truly not notable, or just occurred one or two years, then it can be redirected to a list of the tournaments. The list of tournaments has links to separate tournament articles and the short info for a given non-notable tournament can be included there.

Likewise, for men's ITF events, it seems crazy that all the tournaments like "Great Britain F1 Futures" and "Israel F1 Futures" are itemized within date-specific list-articles 2010 ITF Men's Circuit (January–March), but there is no place one can see which years the "Israel F2 Futures" event occurred. It seems natural to list the men's tournaments and briefly give that info, e.g. *Israel F1 Futures" - 2010 with reference to Israel F1 Futures 2010 event at ITF tournament info, -2011 info etc. You're correct to note that i hadn't yet built out the list of men's ITF events, but now it is started at List of ITF Men's Circuit events (which is a section within ITF Men's Circuit.

This approach to listing the tournaments actually serves better than the scattershot approach of having some tournament articles and not others. Now there can be a place to cover each tournament, either in a separate article or as an item in a list.

Frankly the slavish treatment within Wikipedia of excessive detail in all the tennis events, usually just copied / sourced from ITF official pages -- as in 2010 ITF Men's Circuit (January–March), etc. -- seems non-encyclopedic. I think it would be better to strike out all the drawsheet type info from the Wikipedia articles, as it is available online anyhow, e.g. this drawsheet info in the ITF page for one tournament. That's the real problem, not the existence of short encyclopedic articles on specific tournaments. Again, i am for redirecting this Izida Cup item to the appropriate list of tournaments section. --do ncr am 16:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last vote above states preference for deletion rather than redirect on basis that "but I think most (if not all) these tiny non-notable tournaments get deleted, not redirected. Maybe someone can check on that". Well, previously there was not a proper redirect target. Now there is, the List of ITF Women's Circuit events. So, redirect now makes sense. --do ncr am 23:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 15:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Miller

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

I created this article in February 2010 when Miller was a highly-touted recruit for the Michigan football team. He received a lot of press for his high school playing career and recruitment. However, he ended up as a complete "bust" at the college level. He barely appeared in any games for Michigan and then transferred to UMass where he again failed to become a notable player. In retrospect, my creation of this article was premature. The coverage he received as a high school athlete/recruit fails under WP:NHSPHSATH. Cbl62 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--Yankees10 03:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cbl62, I believe you clearly created an article that was WP:NHSPHSATH in 2010 and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. There was significant national coverage that went beyond local coverage. I am One of Many (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, IAOOM. Given Miller's falling off the radar, this is an article that I felt should run through the AfD process. I'm fine with the outcome either way. Cbl62 (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete virtually all of the reliable sourcing is from the recruitment period. Fails the test of time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Being a highly sought after high school recruit is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk)
Keep This is an example why I personally do not like it when editors write up articles about a recruit. I still have to say keep since he passes WP:GNG. There is significant coverage, it reliable and independent (i.e. ESPN, USAToday, Detroit Free Press, Orlando Sentinel, etc.). Notability is not temporary so he should stay. 09er (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - albeit reluctantly, I'll admit. There's no such thing as "failing the test of time" when it comes to notability because notability is not temporary. Miller has still been the subject of multiple reliable sources - while he was indeed a college bust, his notability is still valid provided there is enough to meet WP:BLP given that he is a living person, which there appears to be. That being said, I would highly recommend that this article be updated given that 2010 is the last bit of information we have about Miller and nothing really to indicate that he was a college bust. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this person was notable to begin with. We should not consider news coverage for potential fame to be an indication of notability(In my opinion). Chillum 16:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for football players or high school and college athletes.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discussion participants countered initial arguments for retention of the article, citing original research and not meeting the notability criteria of having been discussed as a topic itself. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Contract with Business

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

Looks like a rather disguised book review/promo, written by the author himself. Off course, I might be wrong but Bookcover CSB.jpg looks very suspicious. The Banner talk 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and modify with Talk page discussion, probably moving to a new title). Hmm, difficult situation. Let's Assume Good Faith here: the author is a new contributor to wikipedia, and went through an Articles For Creation process, and this article got approved (by AFC editor User:Timtrent after earlier consideration by AFC editor User:Joe Decker). From this comment at an AFC reviewer's talk page, I see that the article author is the author of the book of that title. In the AFC process, the article was improved, to be less about the book itself. I don't think this is meant as bald promotion for sake of getting profits for the book author. I believe the book author is an expert, has written a dissertation and has published a book, and they are trying to contribute on this topic of their expertise. The book author is not the first or only one to write about social contracts or about business's responsibilities, IMO, though they assert originality in their comment linked above. They may be a leader in integrating/synthesizing a specific theory, i am not sure, but the book itself is probably a useable, citable source on this topic area. So, I think the article title should be changed (to no longer be the exact title of the book) and the article should be modified to make it a more general treatment, and more clearly not just the same as the book's topic. And, I hope there may be some external review of the book that can be used. But, I hope we can use the interest and expertise of this contributor, rather than deleting all of their work! The article already does link to social contract general article, which is not so much about business's social contract. An article about the business social contract idea does seem useful, and it is great that this author is willing to contribute a graphic and so on. There are related topics--like Triple bottom line and Corporate social responsibility and other topics indexed at template {{Social accountability}} that could/should be linked, and/or this topic should be integrated with them.

I think it is best to Keep this for now and let's try to work to integrate it better. Watch Talk page of this article and author's Talk page. --do ncr am 15:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Doncram, who makes a persuasive point. I accepted the draft on the simple basis that it had rough edges, but met our needs of having sufficient verifiable notability to be a main namespace article. WP:AFC does not require perfection. IT simply requires that the draft is good enough and likely to survive a deletion discussion. This nomination puts that to the test. I stand by my assessment when I accepted the article. It has faults, but they are for cleaning up, not for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From some reading:

"The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits", 1970, by Milton Friedman, a NYTimes essay (already linked from article)
"Psychological Contracts: A Nano-Level Perspective on Social Contract Theory", 2006, by Jeffery A. Thompson and David W. Hart, Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 68:229–241. (article in a very well respected journal, found by me from an off-line lit search and literature database)
"Social contract and psychological contract: a comparison", 2012, by Yvon Pesqueux in Society and Business Review
the Wikipedia article Corporate social responsibility
nice short article on corporate social contract: if a corporation now has individual rights, it also has responsibilities

and some other knowledge and some more consideration, I think there is a need for a Wikipedia article on Corporate social contract or Social responsibilities of a business (or similar title) detailing different views on specifics of corporate obligations, and that the article up for AFD could be moved to that topic title and revised. I don't have the dissertation or book in question, but I gather that this author is arguing about what obligations businesses have. And detailing 8 areas where businesses should consider taking action, to move outwards (per the diagram) from crisis/poor performance to taking more positive actions as world participants. It seems logical, and I am inclined to accept that the author has made a contribution in categorizing the obligations, consistent with previous academic and philosophical theory. There are many other views on what obligations corporations have. The Corporate social responsibility#UK retail sector section lists several sources asserting, variously, 3 or 4 dimensions of performance. The revised article, under revised title, would collect and compare various views of the specific obligations. One view (Friedman's, taken to extreme) is simply there are no additional obligations that corporations have beyond achieving profits and generating returns for shareholders. This article would complement the Corporate social responsibility article, which is broader and which should not get bogged down in detailing various lists of obligations proposed. So, this would be like a list-article, a list of various authorities' views on the obligations that businesses have. And I'll accept that this author has a specific contribution and would be included in the list. I am quite sure that there is a lack of consensus out in the world, about what obligations businesses have, but there is argument ongoing and there are positions taken, and it's useful to have a wikipedia article on this. --do ncr am 18:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My concerns are that the article is mostly an WP:ESSAY, loaded with original research, mostly a synthesis of the idea of social contract with business ethics, with references to the well-known term social contract, and a reference to enterprise, but no references to the full term as a term. I base my finding of original research after doing numerous sweeps of newspapers and magazines with few coming up with the exact phrase Social contract with business in any kind of consistent sense. So I think Banner (who I've disagreed with at points) is spot-on in his analysis here. Although, to be fair, I did find the term being used in this article, and a mention here, and a mention here, but it does not seem like the term has any coherent identity as term-in-use, apart from Jopie Coetzee's book and writings, as if the phrase is used in different senses by different people, vaguely meaning business ethics. Market researcher Daniel Yankelovich used the term here, but his sense was different from what the current wiki-article is talking about (ie, a "business model"), and senses like here really are talking about something more akin to corporate responsibility or business ethics, similar to this mention here. But even these mentions don't appear in the article as references; instead there are hard-to-check book references lacking inline citations -- troubling, considering that the whole article smacks of original research, with references to Coetzee's book. See, if the book references are valid, wouldn't there be a meal-sized portion of easy-to-find inline citations as well? If I search for the phrase "social contract with business" (in quotes) with the following filters, I find nothing in major US newspapers, nothing in major international news sources, and a sweep of major business sources did not yield much except two Forbes hits (but I could not find the exact phrase in either Forbes article). And searching using no news filters in the browser bar yields, well, surprise, Jopie Coetzee left and right, suggesting original research. As Joe Decker advised here, Wikipedia is not a good place to try to float new ideas.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my concern, along with the promotional aspect mentioned by the nom, and the essay and original research aspects mentioned by Tomwsulcer, is that this topic as is is not notable. Aside from Donaldson & Dunfee (1999) it rests entirely on the author's (Coetzee's) work. The topic has not been dealt with significantly in multiple reliable independent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. The sources predominantly serve to advance the assertions put forth by the text of the article instead of the other way around (e.g., citing Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, etc). The vast majority of the meat of the article (i.e., the parallel-phrased bullet points) is sourced to "Coetzee, J. 2012: The Social Contract with Business – beyond the quest for global sustainability. Xlibris Publishers, London," which makes for giving WP:UNDUE weight to a single source (even if it were a genuine, notable academic concept). --slakr^\ talk / 09:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow! This isn't even an Article! It's an essay, and probably a C or C+ essay at that (at least at the high school I graduated from), so let's get rid of it. After all, Wikipedia by policy is not a place to publish essays of any kind. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lara Spencer. (non-admin closure) IPadPerson (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flea Market Flip

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

Completely outdated, fails notability guidelines for television articles, and no secondary sources. Anyone is welcome to give their input on this. IPadPerson (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect – To Lara Spencer until show develops its own notability. ShoesssS ^Talk

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage. Bring it back if it ever develops notability. --Bejnar (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Baywatch. Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Always Here

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

WP:UNDUE Laun chba ller 17:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – To Baywatch. Information is already there. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:MUSIC for, among other things, lack of independent coverage. redirect to Baywatch is okay, but certainly not necessary. --Bejnar (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem that there's enough about it to stand on its own. GamerPro64 16:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jerusalem (1996 film). No consensus to delete after two relistings. Redirect as an alternative to deletion. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

André Beinö

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

Article has been around for a while with not much to add. Has only had one role and that is it. I think either a delete or a redirect would be the best. Wgolf (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although he was not the star of the film, contrary to the claim in the article, redirect to Jerusalem (1996 film). --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - he has had one role. the article is in bad shape but not really a reason for deletion. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he has just had one small role. bbx (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cerebellum (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Grant (publicist)

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

This is an CV, not a biographical article. Looks to be designed to mention as many famous names as possible to hide the real person. Notability unclear. The Banner talk 20:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This guy has quite a history, not just as a publicist, his recent career, but as a celebrity journalist for People Magazine, Life Magazine, Entertainment Weekly, LA Times, by lines any one of which most journalists would love to promote. Enough that there was a 2011 book written about him, some of it sourced from this wikipedia article. This article is well sourced, though many sources refer to print publications. I have yet to bop over to the local library to verify these, but I have already added a few sources that back up statements made here. I assume their veracity. The sources in this article, though they were masked by brackets, are high quality WP:RS. I've gone in to remove the brackets to reveal the sources better. Not only has he written for sources, there are several profile articles about him. We have an ongoing issue with the category of publicist. Someone with that title is immediately suspect by the deletion crowd, and (full disclosure) I have tangled with this NOM before because he is one of the worst practitioners of the art of deleting content from wikipedia. It is the job of a publicist to get their client's name in the news, so one would expect the publicist would also act to get their own name in the news. All that said, this guy has done that and we have sources of that coverage here. It is a CV, but he has a notable CV Add to that James Grant is an incredibly common name and thus hard to google. Trackinfo (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have already noted that you are following me around to throw with personal attacks instead of serious arguments. Start assuming Good Faith instead of keeping whining about a series of AfDs that you did not like. The Banner talk 19:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was previously James Grant (journalist), deleted last year, though with hardly a resounding consensus (AFD). I don't know if the content is sufficiently changed to warrant a G4, though the Copyright bot flagged it as matching a WP mirror of the old article: [12]. Crow^Caw 22:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observations and question. We read above that there is enough material about him -- Enough that there was a 2011 book written about him, some of it sourced from this wikipedia article. This comes with a convenient link. Google says of this book (loosely defined): Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Sounds like a nonbook. It's put out by "Fec Publishing"; ergo, it's definitely a non-book. ¶ There's nothing damning about this: through no fault of their own, indisputably noteworthy people have their Wikipedia articles scraped by these outfits for sale to the unwary. But the existence of this "book" indicates no noteworthiness whatever. ¶ We read that As an entertainment commentator, Grant has been interviewed by The New York Times. Well, kind of. Here's what the article says: "It's difficult just to drop everything," said James Grant, a writer and producer in Hollywood. "The business of the day must go on. I do a lot of work when Jose Eber is cutting my hair. I do phone work and review files. Once, I had both of my assistants working there." That's it. That's the extent of the "interview". ¶ There is this in Forbes. Anything else that's more than a mere fleeting mention? -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely lacking in any substantive reliable sources about the subject. Fails WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While many of the keep votes are extraordinarily weak, there is still a lack of consensus at this time. Dennis 2¢ 23:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Raut

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

A model/actress that basically falls under too soon. As for the reality show part-not sure how to handle that part. (I've seen people up for AFD for stuff like American Idol though even so yeah) Wgolf (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Oh just looked up the page creator-a sockpuppet person! Wgolf (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable actress with two substantive roles under her belt, in The Xpose and Bigg Boss, passing the WP:ACTOR test, plus she was a calendar model, and there are numerous reliable sources suggesting she easily meets the WP:GNG such as here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Another thing: check out the huge pageview tallies; of course pageview counts is not a formal reason for keeping but in my view exposure this huge rarely correlates with deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- we only count coverage in reliable sources and bollywoodlife is not one, and we only consider significant coverage about the subject, not passing mentions in warmed over promotional PR releases for programme/manufactured promotional "scandal" articles.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- comment-Also she has a not inherited issue. She is still too soon imo. Wgolf (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywoodlife is a reliable source for articles about Indian movie stars and such, which is why it has been referenced hundreds of times in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a celebrity gossip site with no reputation for fact checking accuracy or editorial oversight. Why has it been used in far too many articles? Because people think that any link is suitable as a source and no one has bothered to clean it up yet. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article that is intended to create notability. She's had a role in a Bollywood movie (with this article claiming that she starred in it, and the article about the movie saying it was a supporting role, that got killed off early in the film). Apart from that her only claim to fame is to have been quickly evicted from Bigg Boss 8, the Indian copy of Big Brother, with most of the article telling us some juicy gossips about what happened before she entered the show, and reactions in the press after she was evicted (since she was allowed to remain in the house only for a very short time I guess there wasn't much to report from the house), with some of the gossips sourced to a gossip site on the 'Net. And, last but not least, she has a sister who is a model. Which, since WP:GNG requires in-depth coverage in multiple third-party sources and WP:NACTOR requires "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", means total fail when it comes to notability. Thomas.W ^talk 17:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just noting that Thomas.W tried to remove sources during the deletion discussion, clearly reliable ones such as India Today and Hindustan Times. The claim that Wikipedia is creating her notability is laughably dubious; Raut has arrived as a major Bollywood presence, like it or not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you on my talk page I was reverting a block evading troll, and the material I reverted was WP:Fancruft, and fancruft is fancruft no matter what it's sourced to. But I guess I should thank you for telling me on my talk page that the article was up for deletion (which I didn't know since there's no way to tell from the diff I was reverting from), that comment is what brought me here. AfD-discussions aren't a vote, BTW, the fate of the article is decided by a discussion based on policy, so your superlatives and peacockery has very little impact on it. Thomas.W ^talk 20:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appearance in the reality show Bigg Boss may or may not help her meet notability criterIa, but the role in the film Xpose does. Incidentally I have seen the film, and her role was a major role. She was one of the two main female characters. Also, Bigg Boss happens to be the most watched reality tv show in India, and heavily popular. In Bigg Boss, usually the participants are TV actors or wannabe movie actors etc (they are not entirely unknown people). So, participating in it also may be notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dwaipayan about big boss-well American Idol is the biggest reality show in the US and people get tagged for that. Also the film role major or not does not always meet criteria. Wgolf (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another indication that Raut isn't a "wannabe movie actor" is getting 10,000 pageviews each day, another sign that her fame is not due to a Wikipedia article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ITSPOPULAR and then come back with a rationale that actually carries weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has claimed her success In india initially gaining success Kingfisher and modelling. Afer appearing on a movie with big banner in India she was introduced to industry and lately her appearance on Biggboss makes her eligible to have a wiki page. On google count 637,000. Daan0001 (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:GHITS - we only care about significant coverage of the subject by reliably published sources. Please specifically show where that has happened. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Closing admin please note that TRPoD removed referenced information about this actor. I think it should be a general rule that when an article is up for deletion, people arguing for deletion should not remove references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Also note that user ThomasW also removed referenced information from a reliable source Times of India.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Times of India said Raut is returning to the show -- not a "rumor or speculation".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip rag, so we don't add speculations and unsubstantiated rumours, which is what both TRPoD and I removed. Thomas.W ^talk 11:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the source presented here by @Tomwsulcer: was not in the article when the material was removed, so his post here, criticising TRPoD and me for removing it, is grossly misleading. Thomas.W ^talk 11:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I added the line about Raut returning to the show with a reference here and this information has subsequently been undone twice by contributors arguing for deletion. Seems unfair to be both (1) arguing/voting for deletion and (2) removing referenced information at the same time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC) And the Times of India is not a gossip rag printing "rumors"; fact is, Raut is returning to the show. Period.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Event the most reliable source is not always reliable. The "story" is merely part of the ginned up "controversy" that serves as free publicity for a show based on manufactured scandals . The content is not actually about Raut at all, other than as she is letting herself be used as a pawn in this promotional publicity stunt. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense squared. It is your original research that Raut is a "pawn" in a "ginned up" controversy as "free publicity"; simply put, Raut is returning to the show.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are significant coverage in reliable sources which ultimately makes the subject notable . — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has just acted in one low grade Hindi movie and in a reality show. This fails WP:NACTOR. There are some strict notability guidelines to have Wikipedia articles for individuals. We cant have wikipedia articles for every actors in Hindi film industry. I also suggest to revisit the pages created for every contestants of Big Boss to keep the standard and quality of Wikipedia. Athachil (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree she fails the actor test which says has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and she meets it with two roles in the The Xposé (a major Indian movie) plus the hit TV reality show Bigg Boss. Further, the NACTOR test says has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following which is confirmed by having over 200,000+ pageviews in 90 days. She clearly meets WP:GNG--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Boys Night Out (radio). Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boys Ride Out

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

TV show with no info on it and as of now seems unotable Wgolf (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Only stuff I can find are facebook & twitter related which isn't ideal .–Davey2010 • (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. New tv show from the trio of the popular Boys Night Out (radio) show. I suggest referencing to these sources 1 2. --RioHondo (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverages to reliable sources sources establish its notability. Hence subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Wikicology (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boys Night Out (radio). Coverage in reliable sources is not significant enough for a standalone article ([13], [14]). However, this a valid search term, so redirection is appropriate. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Secret ^account 18:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Joy

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

Very poor sources. Two are about another band and don't mention Artificial Joy, one is an Amazon page, and another is a very brief mention in a blog. The band self-published an EP and toured for a few years, but isn't enough to establish WP:BAND. Some members may be borderline notable, but notability is not inherited. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was created in December 2013, it had several clean-up tags on it from May, indicating it was a copy/paste job. [[15]] This was presumably because it was originally derived from the article Artificial Joy NYC. It was, in fact, almost identical, so I turned that article into a redirect before I noticed what was going on. Messy stuff. Grayfell (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Source is a legit source from Official Amazon biography http://www.amazon.com/Size-14/e/B000APVK22/ref=ntt_mus_dp_pel, No reason for article deletion, User Grayfell editing all entries relating to Robt Ptak and seems to have some kind of personal vendetta against the artist --Subtitlemeplease (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The profile on that link specifically says it's provided by the artist (or rather the related band Size 14) to Amazon, it is not WP:SECONDARY, and further, it barely even mentions Artificial Joy. I have no vendetta against the artist, and have been editing these articles because they are mostly badly written and in need of cleanup. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazon bio mentioning Artificial Joy is managed by the artist Size 14 so it is WP:SECONDARY All members of Artificial Joy were in major label bands so meet the requirements for WP:BAND please check each members bio for proof of this - Drummer Alex Elena was even the drummer for Avril Lavigne's album Let go^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subtitlemeplease (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Size 14 was founded by Robt Ptak, and according to his Wikipedia page (written by the same small group of editors), he manages the band's Facebook page and other websites. Robt Ptak is Artificial Joy. The bio itself specifically makes that point. It's clearly the same person, let's not pretend otherwise. The band may, possibly pass some of the WP:BAND specifics, but I don't think they pass WP:GNG without some reliable secondary sources. Passing GNG is the more pressing goal. As an alternate, the article could be merged with Robt Ptak, but lacking solid sources, it would be greatly reduced in size. Grayfell (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It passes WP:BAND therefore it does not need deleting. Thanks --Subtitlemeplease (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, since there are no reliable, secondary sources, the band has not been established as notable. The band didn't produce any non-self-published albums, received no substantial press coverage that I've seen, and has not been cited by any notable outside musicians as being influential. Other than Ptak, the two supposedly notable members are Milena Mepris and Alex Elena. While their membership might, arguably, lead to the band meeting WP:BAND, those articles have too many notability problems of their own to ignore.

Mepris' article (which was also created by you) has extremely poor sources. After looking into it closer, I'm suggesting that her article be merged with Pin Me Down, since that is her only substantiated claim to notability.

Elena's only claim to fame seems to be having worked with more famous musicians, but again, there are no reliable secondary sources. The only secondary source for THAT article is a brief blurb in a metal blog which accepts WP:UGC, lists no author, and reads like a press release. Again, very poor sources there.

Claiming that the article just barely meets a single requirement of WP:BAND seems like trying to squeak by on a technicality. After thinking about it further, think this article should be merged with Ptak's instead of being deleted. Without reliable, secondary sources this is just a semi-WP:WALLEDGARDEN of vanity articles. Grayfell (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell is following me around on Wikipedia editing all of my posts, he has even been editing the company I WORK for wikipedia page, this is bordering on Stalking Could someone else please check whether the Artificial Joy page should be reinstated? --Subtitlemeplease (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitlemeplease, when you link to a user's page, it notifies that user, which is why I am responding. I understand your concern but stalking is not what's happening. You added spam to an article on my watchlist (the UK Locksmithing thing). When I reverted that, I also checked your edit history to see if you had added any other spammy links. This is common practice to prevent vandalism. I then edited some of the articles you created to clean them up. When doing so, I added them to my WP:WATCHLIST. You retaliated by blanking my talk page. I decided it wasn't worth the hassle, and backed off, but those articles remained on my watchlist. When one of those article showed up again, I decided to look closer and began editing them. If you feel my behavior is inappropriate, I suggest you describe what is happening at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. There are only few people watching this deletion discussion, so discussing it here is probably not going to accomplish much. WP:AIN, however, is very active, and will attract administrator attention if you still feel that is necessary. Grayfell (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell Sorry I don't have time to make some report. I just only ever edited the pages so that these bands primarily Size 14 and its associated acts/members got a bit of recognition for the music they produced in the 90s. If you want to try and get these deleted/wiped it thats your choice. --Subtitlemeplease (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your writing style is very distinctive. Are you the same person who wrote the Amazon bio? Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not write the Amazon bio, I'm just a fan of the band, I'm from the UK not Los Angeles - Whoever owns the copyright to their music/has access to edit a Amazon Artists bio would have wrote it. --Subtitlemeplease (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 09:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Colombo

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

Person does not meet notability criteria in my eyes. It contains some dubious claims, such as the subject was "predicting" the U.S. housing bubble on his website as early as 2004, when in fact Internet Archive only has copies of said website as early as 2011 (and when you check, the website says "under construction" instead of any meaningful content). Plus, the fact that the article was created by single-purpose account EconoGeek (talk · contribs) gives it a WP:AUTOBIO smell. bender235 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple misunderstanding: Stock-market-crash.net was the website built in 2004 [16], not TheBubbleBubble.com, which was started in 2011 (hence why it said "under construction" then). Stock-market-crash.net was cited in a 2005 LA Times article as one of the highest trafficked bubble-related websites. [17]. Stock-market-crash.net now forwards to www.thebubblebubble.com/historic-crashes/, which is also owned by Jesse. Re: notability: this person is a journalist who is frequently cited and interviewed in the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.171.11 (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a columnist in some newspaper does not merit notability. --bender235 (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is a globally recognized business publication, and this columnist and analyst makes frequent international news headlines for warning about economic bubbles. [18][19][20][21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.171.11 (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He has established some degree of notability, but it should be noted that he's not a columnist for Forbes, he's a contributor. I'm not commenting on the quality or impact of his work, just noting that there's a distinct difference between the two. His status is noted on his Forbes posts, and he refers to himself as a contributor on his LinkedIn profile. (I've edited the article accordingly.) JSFarman (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he might meet notability. However, the article as of now should be deleted. All biographical details (such as HS and college graduation) come from a self-published blog, which is something Wikipedia does not accept. --bender235 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- For some additional background related to notability, this analyst's bubble warnings often receive high-level official responses from central banks [22][23] and government officials, including the Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key. [24] Non-notable individuals are unlikely to garner official responses of this nature. In addition, this analyst is a popular social media personality [25][26][27]

Comment Notified WP:WikiProject Economics with this edit. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cites #1 & #9 are his own site -- not valid references for the statement. The sentence before cite #2 says that he created a web page, but the link is to the LA Times newspaper, with nothing about the web site. The sentence before cite #3 says that he was recognized...etc., but his name does not appear in the article cited. That sentence must be removed. Cite #4 is valid. Cite #5 is is own site; not a reliable source. Cite #6, list of tweeters to follow, he is one in a list of dozens. Cite #7 does not mention him and is unrelated. It should be removed, along with the sentence before it. Cite #8 does quote an article of his - probably RS. Cites 10-12 and 14 are articles of his - not 3rd party RS. Cites 13 and 15 do talk about him; both are blog posts in an online news site in New Zealand that looks reliable. Summary four of the cites look like RS. Since non-sourced information should not be included, judgment should be made on the four that remain. LaMona (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Colombo got it's merits, but the claim that he predicted the housing bubble needs exceptional sources; his own website and newspaper articles who discuss his website in general words are not enough. Let's raise the WP:REDFLAG.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Football in Portugal. Randykitty (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Portugal by major honours won

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

Contested PROD. Still fails WP:OR and WP:SYNTH JMHamo (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - firstly, who is defining what is a "major" honour? Which reliable sources are talking about the topic of 'football clubs in Portugal by major honours won'? I fear we have WP:SYNTH here. Giant Snowman 06:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you search in portuguese you'll get much more sources. For example this: "F.C. Porto e Benfica: confira o total de títulos". maisfutebol.iol.pt. maisfutebol.iol.pt. 2013-08-11. Retrieved 2014-09-15."FIFA confirma que FCPorto tem mais títulos que Benfica". dn.pt. Diário de Notícias. 2011-05-25. Retrieved 2014-09-15.Rpo.castro (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That citation pertains only to FC Porto and Benfica, what about the rest? We need extensive coverage to satisfy GNG. JMHamo (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with WP:OR implications of subjective term "major". If no reliable sources are discussing this for all teams then I am not sure the OR issues can be resolved.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article needs to be improved, not deleted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I don't care). I don't mind if this gets deleted, and it is probably best to be deleted, as this is yet another fan list that is quite likely not to be maintained in any consistent way (there are already enough half baked football related articles, I say...) BUT note that 1) lists of this kind are perfectly common in yearly sports magazines / reviews (i.e. it is fair to presume that sources exist and are not hard to find) 2) "major" will be surely settled by those sources - and eventually a little discussion to chose here and there. Anyway, 'major' is evident in most cases: competitions organized by the national football federation, which are in general quite easy to know which are (FIFA / UEFA / CAF / ... recognition) 3) There are several other similar articles, better take that in consideration, to avoid too much of different criteria - Nabla (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's pretty short and, given the nature of Portuguese football with its big club dominance, it's not very likely to get much longer. Still, it is fairly valuable and relevant information that it seems a shame to remove altogether. On that basis would it not be better to merge it into the also fairly short Football in Portugal as a highly relevant section? Keresaspa (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: The proposal from Keresaspa, for me is the best way do solve the"problem". I think this information fits much better in Football in Portugal then along itself.Rpo.castro (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. In contrast to many other aspects of the Star Wars Universum, these lists lack even the slightest indication of out-of-universe notability. If somebody wants to copy this to Wookieepedia, I'll be happy to email them the contents. Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars planets (A–B)

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

Unsourced and completely fictious and overly long article written from an in-universe perspective. None of these locations have any real notability as all the notable planets are already listed at List of Star Wars planets. Nathan121212 (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating

Keep. Don't see any problem with this list, which is part of a series. Much of it is sourced, contrary to the nom's claim. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional Keep~~ there are about ten such articles detailing the planets by letter (A–B, C–D, E–G, H–J, K–L, M–N, O–Q, R–S, T–V, W–Z). Without commenting on the merits of having all ten of these articles, if this process is to take place they should all be nominated en mass, not just the one of them. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelapstick:

Done nominated others. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication of notability for these individual fictional planets. Most of the entries are sourced solely (if at all) by the books in which they appear. It is doubtful that there would be much in the way of secondary sourcing available for many of them. Planets that do have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources should be included in the main list of planets, or have their own article as required. Further to all of this much of the article is written "in universe", and while correctable, I don't see the point given the lack of secondary sourcing. There are alternative outlets for such extensive lists of planets, which I am sure already exist. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which states, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." This means that topics about fictional elements (in this case, planets) should be covered in secondary sources. The Star Wars novels and the non-independent guides cannot be considered secondary sources for listing the planets. This A-B subset (and the other subsets) is just indiscriminately listing every planet that appears in the fictional universe. I support List of Star Wars planets, limited to the ones that have been critiqued in secondary sources (most likely the ones in the films). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of a secondary source covering planets seen in Star Wars. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that WP:INDISCRIMINATE points to WP:WAF, which says, "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself." This is not being done here; it is just in-universe content without any independent commentary on it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this nomination is for all ten of the planets lists. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:BUNDLE so the other lists can be included appropriately. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: I have listed them here. Can you please assist me with adding the template to the other articles as I am currently editing via mobile. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have added the template to the other list articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination claimed that the A-B page was unsourced when it actually had 27 references. See WP:SK: "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." Andrew (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of these references are secondary sources, which are needed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE (see my comment above). One cannot put together primary and non-independent sources to claim that an article about a fictional element is notable. Notability depends on secondary sources. Please note that List of Star Wars planets links to Wookieepedia, where in-universe content (which is what we have here in contravention of WP:WAF) is best housed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification: I meant the article had too few reliable sources. Most of these articles are sourced to fiction books and first party sources. I said unsourced in error. Nathan121212 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Four secondary sources (i.e., published independently by a third party) for a list of this type is GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the secondary sources are sources of information for only a few planets. They are not notable enough to stand alone if we were to remove all the info sourced form unreliable sources. Nathan121212 (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VMS Mosaic: These are not secondary sources independent from the franchise. The book The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons is published by LucasBooks. Also, WP:GAMEGUIDE says to "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right", and this applies to planets. Basically, game guides could supplement a passage about a notable planet, but they do not count as secondary sources toward establishing notability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CSC #2 which explicitly allows this list given the above delete arguments that every list member "fails the notability criteria." This list goes very far beyond being only game related, so WP:GAMEGUIDE is not at all applicable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline also states, "However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." Here we have hundreds of entries of indiscriminate planets, so list of Star Wars planets can focus on those actually mentioned in independent sources, like the National Geographic one I linked above. In-universe content should not be outweighing independent commentary; WP:WAF#Real-world perspective says, "Real-world perspective is not an optional quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles." That perspective needs to have more than just in-universe content. That is what Wookieepedia is suitable for. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This could be included in the main list article to basically tell readers that Wookieepedia goes into detail about planets. An external link would be available, and readers can become accustomed to Wookieepedia as a source for in-universe content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These articles date back to an earlier period in Wikipedia's history, when we had very loose inclusion criteria. Back then, it was still widely accepted that Wikipedia was the "sum of all human knowledge", including intrawiki fan sites for major franchises. Although interesting to fans, it is far too indiscriminate for Wikipedia, and it belongs on Wikia, which welcomes in-universe writing and non-independent sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think WP:OBTOP, WP:OBSCURE and WP:BELONG have some applicability here. Yes, there is a lot of in-universe, but there is also a good bit of out of universe material. Unfortunately, most of the editors who would have improved the article(s) to meet current guidelines have long since been all but forcibly driven away from editing Wikipedia. We need many more editors; not the current death spiral. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OBSCURE is an essay that, in terms of in-universe content, does not correspond with Wikipedia's policy of not being an indiscriminate collection of information. The policy states, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." This indicates the need for emphasis on secondary sources providing independent commentary on the subject matter. There is no abundance of "out-of-universe material" that is not simply identifying the primary sources in which a fictional planet appears. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot - All this crap belongs on some "fan site" like Wikia. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest articulating your argument further, otherwise it falls in the WP:BELONG category. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~I couldn't care less,~~ Some things just belong elsewhere and imho this is one of them, ~~If my argument falls in the "Belong" category then I'm absolutely chuffed!....~~ –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per not violating policy being sourcable and meeting WP:SALAT. With respects Davey2010, while certainly information in Wikipedia could be included outside these pages, "crap" is not an argument against a list article here. I find mass nominations to be unhelpful, specially when all nominated are then judged by addressable weakness in on or two. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no independent sourcing here that vouches for the vast majority of the content, which is simply descriptions of the planets from primary sources. WP:SALAT says, "To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists." The primary-source content far outweighs any secondary-source content that may be available (and would be focused on the so-called "major" planets). Per WP:CSC #3, "If a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." This is why I advocate keeping list of Star Wars planets (not up for AfD here); it is definitely worth identifying those that have been covered in secondary sources (typically the film ones) and referencing both primary and secondary sources for each planet in their own section. Unfortunately, most of the planets across all these subset articles do not have any secondary sourcing and thus go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE's definition of how fiction is treated in an encyclopedic manner (along with WP:WAF, which gets more specific, as I explained above). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, I respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding mass nominations. While sometimes (usually) unhelpful, in this case it is the only way a nomination would make sense. It would not make sense to delete (or nominate for deletion) planets A-B, but keep (or not nominate) the remainder. Why would A-B be any less noteworthy than C-D, or any other for that matter? It certainly doesn't make sense to have the same discussion across ten different AfD pages. A series of lists organized in this manner only makes sense if it is all or nothing, which is the way a deletion discussion on the matter should be conducted. I do however agree with your assessment that general "this is crap" and "I don't like it" style arguments are not helpful, and are contrary to what we would expect in an AfD discussion. As Erik says (and I did above), the planets with significant, third party sources, should either have their own articles (as does Alderaan for example), or are covered in List of Star Wars planets. It should be noted that many of the planets that do have articles are poorly sourced and generally written in-universe as well (which of course is grounds for improvement, not deletion). I personally don't see the need to document every minute detail of the expanded Star Wars universe. If the only sourcing available is the books in which they appear, the General Notability Guidelines agree with me. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True kelapstick, I find WP:DONTLIKEIT arguments to be decidedly unhelpful. My issue with this mass nomination is that it requires that the several hundred grouped topics be searched, and the several hundred included refs be checked. This would almost call for 4 or 5 mandatory relistings to allow that quantity of work to be done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. There aren't enough reliable sources to make viable articles about these fictional planets and worlds. We end up having an indiscriminate collection here, unable to tell notable planets from planets which were mentioned once in some obscure pulp-fiction book which supports the fictional universe. The in-universe content would be fine if it were supported by out-of-universe references (academic study or critical analysis, for example) but that just doesn't happen. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wish to delete all because of issues with some of the listed planets? Why not simply propose someone go through the 300+ planets listed and delete those unsourced? Would you also wish deletion of the blue-linked planets on the lists because they are also in-universe? As they are all fictional elements, why not simply merge and redirect them all to the Star wars article.... the one place where these fictional elements might merit any mention. Or we could just as simply nominate every article even remotely related to Star Wars, as every part of the series is fiction or based on fiction, which raises the question "just what part of Star Wars is not WP:INUNIVERSE so as to meet WP:Real world?" Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I picked one of these articles at random (List of Star Wars planets (O–Q)) and I tried to see what would happen if I deleted everything without a citation or where the citation is only to primary material (e.g., a planet is mentioned in a novel and the novel is cited as the source). Not a single entry remained. Planets with sufficient out--of-universe references can have their own articles: I don't feel lists of this nature work on Wikipedia -- they are better served by a Star Wars wiki. Bondegezou (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I went through List of Star Wars planets (M–N) next. I've deleted 80% of the article for having no reliable, secondary sources. What's left is left almost entirely because of citations to Daniel Wallace and Scott Kolins' "The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons (Star Wars)" (1996). I don't know whether that constitutes a reliable, secondary source. If it is, it is still only a single source and if what's left in the article is just a regurgitation of that one source, then that's not appropriate. So I still say delete them all. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And then I tried List of Star Wars planets (W–Z): nothing there is a reliable, secondary source. I've deleted all but the first entry. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I could see an argument for cutting down the lists and merging them into a single list (rather than having the numerous lists there currently are), but not for cutting all this material entirely. A list does not have to prove individual notability for each item in the list so long as the main subject itself is notable. kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not warrant this extensive in-universe content. See my comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've been going through these articles today to try and improve them, should they be kept. Once you've hacked away all the obviously unsourced and un-secondary-sourced material, there's not much less. The remainder would certainly fit onto a single list. If we start hacking away anything that doesn't have independent secondary sourcing, I don't know that there will be anything left. Bondegezou (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore all recently deleted list items per WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You already said to "Keep" above (and as seen here), and your arguments were refuted. Please redact this repeat. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @VMS Mosaic: - I've struck your comment since Erik's correct - You can't vote twice. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I looked back and thought I had only made a previous comment. I completely forgot my first !vote two weeks ago. I would gladly have redacted it, but too late now. BTW, I do not concede that any argument has refuted anything I said. I simply have no interested in arguing endlessly. I believe what I said and said what I meant. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries we all mistakes - I've done it plenty of times :), Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given that WP:CSC #2 has been stated as a keep reason (regardless of who believes they have refuted it), I think it is improper to remove any items from any of the lists based on notability until this AfD has been closed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been working on these articles while the AfD is going on and have deleted numerous list items. I have not done this on the basis of notability: rather, I have deleted material that is not supported by secondary, reliable sources. I have done this under WP:V. I quote: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I hope that explains my approach and is satisfactory to other editors. My aim is to (a) improve articles as per basic Wikipedia policy; and (b) see what is left having done that in order to inform this AfD discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PSTS and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, a primary source is perfectly acceptable as the only source for actual "facts" such as planet x is found on page y of book z about universe w. Given that, every single planet listed has a primary source; some actually cited while many others need the citation added. That is all that is needed to meet WP:V. Notability for each planet is not required per WP:CSC #2; notability only applies to the list itself. Either the policy and the explaining essay mean what they say or they need to be rewritten. I believe they mean what they say. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies then, VMS Mosaic. I have been over-zealous with some edits. Some of the material I deleted had no citations: I take it we are agreed that that can be deleted under WP:V. Some had primary sources. Feel free to revert my edits wholesale, or go through and just return those with primary sources. If I have time, I will do some more work on the articles. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not abundant secondary sourcing about planets in the Star Wars fictional universe to warrant splitting a Wikipedia list article into subsets. Content from primary sources should not outweigh content from secondary sources, so a single list can be appropriate. Nobody here has argued against list of Star Wars planets; they have argued against the high level of detail from primary sources in the light of nearly no detail from secondary sources. Bondegezou's removal of this level of detail is appropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was with removing entire entries. If an entry exists within the SW universe, then it by definition has at least one primary source available. Yes, the cites and/or citation needed tags need to be added. Yes, some excessive detail, in particular any analysis or detail not supported by primary (or secondary) sources, can be removed. I have no issue with combining into fewer articles as long as WP:TOOLONG doesn't come into play. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No one has offerred any explanation of why we need two competing lists. The implication is that list of Star Wars planets represents the planets that are actually notable and this longer list is the "deep fandom" stuff. There is no ban on the use of primary sources! To be useful, a list needs to be of reasonable length, which this ten-part monstrosity is not. Wookiepedia collects the Star Wars trivia. Claimsworth (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above- Moudul hasan (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Contrary to Schmidt's assertion above, it fails WP:SALAT because it epitomises What Wikipedia is not. Some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. A list like this one needs to explain why it contributes to the state of human knowledge. Additionally, per nom. there is grossly inadequate citation to reliable secondary sources for individual entries and their content (or even reliable sources); and per editor Claimsworth, the list of Star Wars planets covers the notable ground. --Bejnar (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all- Excessively lengthy, in-universe fancruft sourced only to the works of fiction themselves (and poorly, at that). We've already got a list of star wars planets, and there is no need for a second ten-volume repetition. Reyk _YO! 01:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Justified by it being about a major work of fiction. Separate articles about each of them is what would be excessive. But a mere list is nnot undue coverage, or inappropiate. This is talking about a fictional universe, so sources from the fiction are sufficient. Asking ofr deletion oin the ground of it being "fictious" is a limitation of the role of WP, which talks about notable fiction in the same fdetail as other notable subjects. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Star Wars" is a major work of fiction, but most of these entries are from spin-off novels or levels in video games, which I don't feel can be called major works of fiction. Bondegezou (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That, and the requirement for reliable independent sources does not disappear just because the article is about a work of fiction. Reyk _YO! 11:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Party Tricks. ...any appropriately included material at the target j⚛e decker ^talk 15:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Party Tricks (season 1)

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

Unneeded page for a first season for a show that has not even started yet. Best would be to redirect to the show. Wgolf (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-also considering it looks like just 6 episodes, that could easily just be part of the page, no need for a season listing then. (which of course adds to how it is too soon for this page if ever now) Wgolf (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this page should be kept. Not only is the series to be renewed for a second season (as can be found in one of the articles), but it is also expected to be commissioned as a complete series.Mattom123 (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-You don't know if it will be renewed or not given the fact that it hasn't started yet, plus most shows before they start that get pages like this just get redirected anyway to the main page. Wait until at least one season. Wgolf (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Also it could just have a page for list of episodes also. Wgolf (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Party Tricks. If and when there are enough episodes and/or seasons to justify splitting this out into separate articles, we can do it. But at the moment we have six confirmed episodes, and a lot of things that could happen given the generally skittish nature of Australian TV networks. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Merge Per Lankivei. Only one episode has been shown so far and I'm not necessarily sure if it needs an article for itself for the time being. GamerPro64 16:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to create a redirect from Arjun Tendulkar to Sachin Tendulkar#Family, go right ahead. Deor (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun tendulkar

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

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

Non-notable athlete. A 14-yr old youth cricketer who would go completely unnoticed if he were not the son of Sachin Tendulkar. A promising future? Perhaps. Too soon to tell. Possibly useful as a footnote on the page about his father, but not valid for its own article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been moved since its nomination. I have added the new title. Both should be deleted if that is the outcome of this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!

Arjun Tendulkar is also notable Out of Nation means in international news paper you can see here --- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2763349/Little-Master-s-little-master-Sachin-Tendulkar-s-son-blasts-ton-school-match.html

So I request you to not delete the wikipedia page of Arjun Tendulkar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khadeeralisk (talk • contribs) 14:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He can continue to "do well in his cricket life" off Wikipedia until that doing well has notability enough for a Wikipedia article. He is already mentioned in the Sachin Tendulkar article, that is sufficient. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited. Fails WP:CRIN inclusion guidelines. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sachin Tendulkar#Family until sufficiently notable for his own article. The-Pope (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already mentioned in Sachin Tendulkar article and that is adequate. Not notable yet for a separate article. Arunram (talk)

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. Deor (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Farioli

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

Subject seems to be a largely non-notable digital marketing consultant. Co-written two books and appears on lecture circuit. Author's only contribution to Wikipedia seems to be this article, which leads me to suspect marketing puff piece. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I left a note on the original author's talk page (User talk:FICB78), and it seems that an early incarnation of this article may have been speedily deleted? Can anyone verify? --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, speedy deletion WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising) September 13 by Peridon (talk · contribs) after being tagged by Trivialist (talk · contribs). The deleted version is the same as the present version in overall outline but with minor wording differences, and had been created the same day as its deletion by the same user as this version. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are either not reliable or merely mention the subject in passing - in other words, insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You'd think someone supposedly expert in digital marketing would at least have paid some attention to what is required of a Wikipedia article. But there is no evidence of passing WP:GNG: there are many sources, but none appear to be reliable, independent, and in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't add much to the previous posts, except to comment that a lot of marketing people seem to be fixed in their ways and don't bother to do research on the place they're proposing to promote in. At least this one is written in a fairly neutral way, unlike most of them who cram buzz word on top of buzz word ending up with a load of meaningless guff. Peridon (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may avoid buzz words and extravagant adjectives , but it has a considerable amount of full caps for company and product names, has a quote from the subject giving Emerson as his inspiration, includes some remarkably minor awards, and says a good deal of it two or three times over. But yes, it's not from the usual network(s). DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Queen of the World 2013

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

A yearly article about a not notable pageant which doesn't have a mother article or a reference. ...William 12:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try also:

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

--do ncr am

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as offshoot of non-notable/non-existing pageant article. Mabalu (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. wp:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The fact this has a year in title is easily addressed by moving this article to the missing pageant name article, i.e. move to Miss Queen of the World. And the lack of reference in the article is easily addressed by adding references. I am a little unclear if Queen of the World (in its 25th year, seemingly) is same or not as "Miss Queen of the World". But all can be addressed by tagging article or just adding to article. --do ncr am 13:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there's nowhere to redirect them to. Queen of the World, the pageant, was deleted at AFD a while ago, and more recently deleted again as part of a set of song title redirects to an album deleted at AFD. There never seems to have been a Miss Queen of the World. Mabalu (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. The find sources links supplied by Doncram, while appreciated, don't turn up any useful references. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 19:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan Financial Ltd

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

This article relies entirely on primary sources. No indication of notability.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD. ansh666 12:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 23:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)--114.81.255.40 (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 23:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)--114.81.255.41 (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to parent company Kaplan, Inc. Some articles link to it other than through template:Graham (nav box for the corporate group), e.g. bio of Jeremy Hanley. – Fayenatic London 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article can be improved. Ali Fazal (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a sufficiently large division of the company to cover separately; trying to cover all the operations and acquisitions of the entire company in a single article would be exceptionally cumbersome. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Divisions of large businesses can have their own articles. Notability is obvious. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Frost

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

Effectively unsourced BLP with severe doubt about notability The Banner talk 12:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Calambert2014 (talk)) Someone just added some refs to prove that these information are correct. I can promise you that all these information are reliable and correct. If you want a proof of what has been written, please click on this link. http://www.bitlanders.com/MatthewFrost There is an other bio in that article. Please don't delete this page, I worked a lot to create it. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calambert2014 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete there were a lot of links added, but none are reliably published sources which is the requirement for having a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- option 2 would be to rename and refocus to: Aspirational (short film). it looks like it is getting some buzz in the some important culture sources like Ad Age and AV Club. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kirar Thakur. No consensus to delete after two relistings - there is some referenced content hence merge as an alternative to deletion Philg88 ^♦talk 05:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirar

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

There are two articles named Kirar and Kirar Thakur for the same subject on wiki, and this one is poorly sourced/nearly unsourced and exhibits most of the unreliable information in an advertising tone. Mahensingha 13:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:There are two articles named Kirar and Kirar Thakur for the same subject on wiki, and this one is poorly sourced/nearly unsourced and exhibits most of the unreliable information in an advertising tone. --Mahensingha 12:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jitin Chawla

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

Okay a career counselor, while they help get jobs for people-not needed for every one IMO, can't find that much notability Wgolf (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-okay just saw that he does have a radio program, might be something there, maybe a userfy or something. (Though I just saw that he apparently has done over 16,500 workshops-something about that number seems odd, since I'm not sure how you could tell if they did that many and that just seems a bit too much) Wgolf (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete any possible notability would be as a business perso running a chain of counseling centers, but the article has no references to show notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nominator's assertion that no sources existed has been refuted. Article needs sourcing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaya Nila

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

Significantly lacks sources, which are not available online. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

and English through WP:INDAFD: Ilaya Nila

Comment: Apparently sources are available online. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Livemint and The Hindu call the song a classic and evergreen hit respectively. There are other sources ([28][29][30][31]). The rationale given by the nominator is lack of online sources but it seems like WP:BEFORE wasn't done.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the various sources listed in the discussion. Many valid sources do in fact exist online. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love (Praga Khan song)

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

Trying ot find some notability, no luck so far. Should probably just be redirected. Wgolf (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Electronic Arts. Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Maynard

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

I don't feel strongly about this, but I'd like to bring it up to see what others think.

First, there isn't significant coverage of this person in secondary sources. The only coverage I was able to find was this: http://www.fastcolabs.com/3007250/open-company/boxs-65-year-old-android-engineer-gives-your-startup-some-unsentimental-advice

Second, this person may satisfy the criteria at WP:CREATIVE, but I'm not particularly convinced, since there doesn't seem to be any awards or capstone work attributed to him. This area is where I am not certain, but leaning towards delete. Transcendence (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I note that the current secondary source in the article says: He was a founding member of Electronic Arts (now a ~billion dollar corporation). The English-WP entry on his first game, Worms?#Reception, says it was very well received— the pullquotes from Compute's Gazette show it wasn't selected for an award as such, but was selected as one of a list of "Our Favorite Games". Calling it "still in a class by itself" after some years means it was so innovative as to be significantly creative. That nice FastCo article you found attests that he's been an enduring presence in the industry, which speaks toward him being the opposite of if he were just some guy somewhere who only ever just banged out a PET backport of Pitfall! and was never heard of again. Having more secondary sources (such as wouldn't just repeat / further-attest what we already saw in the first source, because there's several of those) would indeed be very welcome. Elsewhere... I see pieces and parts... let's see... a gaming article referred to him as "a legend among game programmers", which doesn't seem like something that would be pulled out of nowhere.
Him having worked on the Xerox Star and the Mother of All Demos is also rather significant, because that's srs busns historically. I am doe-eyed unfamiliar with how to shoehorn importance and significance like this into English Wikipedia's DSM5-like WP: STUFF criteria system. (...or, another philosophy would say, how the English Wikipedia's criteria system should shoehorn around an article like this.) The article could be better as articles go, but looking at what's right with the article in sum, expresses quite enough significance of the subject for me to call Strong Keep. —Sburke (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electronic Arts is fine as a plausible, cheap search term, though it would be better if his mention in the article was sourced. czar ♔ 05:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Delete. I come bearing the DSM-5. If the currently unsourced text is to be believed (BLP, anyone?), Maynard has had an impressive career. However, notability is not inherited: even though he may have worked on big projects (and perhaps was even a big player in some of those projects), that may ultimately warrant a mention on those articles' pages, but the question is whether Maynard as an individual meets the GNG. Articles must have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The best I can find on him is that Fast Company article. A WP:VG/RS search shows two brief mentions (which are more about the company than the individual). This is to say that we don't have nearly enough sourcing to write about Maynard as a figure. Accordingly, the article will only accrete unsourced materials (against BLP policy). czar ♔ 01:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electronic Arts. If sources can be found that establish notability and can verify the information in the article then it can be resurrected from the history. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source here is a game site that allows anyone to edit, so this is not a reliable source. I looked and could not find any other sources. I can find him under lists of people who worked at Xerox Park, but that's not enough for notability. LaMona (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soulbizness

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

Band appears to fail the GNG and WP:NBAND. I can find no sources providing non-trivial coverage. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retro-Dial

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

Software product that appears not to have attracted any notability whatsoever. The article is unsourced but a brief search didn't bring forth any verifiable secondary sources information whatsoever. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the nature of this software, most of the sources are non-web. There are many references and discussions on various non-web bulletin board systems, deep web locations, and the many Retro-Dial stations themselves accessible via telnet. The only public web sources besides two web sites hosting two of the stations and the Diversi-Dial wikipedia entry (which is linked in the article), are various forum discussions and BBS lists around the web, which are really of no consequence other than directing people to actual servers. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed with this, or in general, advice on submitting any article for which content is notable outside of the public-facing web? --Que1000101 (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to have web-based sources - many wikipedia articles are sourced entirely from references to books, journals, off-line newspapers and other media that aren't on the web. However, the sources must be independent, verifiable and respected. Take a look at WP:SECONDARY for a general discussion of how to proceed. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic doesn't pass the search engine test for notability (the GNG). It had no meaningful hits in secondary source databases such as ProQuest, LexisNexis, HighBeam, Questia, or Google Books. Almost all hits were for rotary dial phones. From what I found, it isn't similar enough to Diversi-Dial to warrant a redirect there (by the way, ddial has many more sources from a gbooks search alone). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 16:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Davis (critic)

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

I find no evidence as to the notability of this person. There are sources that quote his opinion as to who will win one award or another, but giving him no more coverage than to reiterate that he's the founder of Awards Circuit. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I find no evidence of notability for Awards Circuit either. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental winners

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

Bundling these very similar pages on same non-notable pageant for deletion. The parent page, Miss Intercontinental is currently up for deletion discussion, and these related pages are essentially offshoots/forms/etc on the same topic. Sourcing is universally primary/nonexistent/non-reliable. The creating editors almost universally seem to be single-purpose accounts (suggesting conflict of interest/promotional edits). On the 1986-92 page we actually see: "These were not extensively publicized, and data and photographs are scarce or not available." (So not notable, even then?) Mabalu (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons above:

I'm leaving Miss Intercontinental India and Miss Intercontinental 2014 out of this for now as although they are both pretty bad , they still have a lot more info in them and in 2014's case, tons of (almost all worthless) cites and references so seeing how this goes for now - they may merit individual discussion in a way that the above bundled articles don't seem to do. Mabalu (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All as unsupported by reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Intercontinental has just been brought to my notice and shows that the mother article for these articles was pretty categorically deleted (a snow delete, even) in the past. Mabalu (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the recent AFD for Miss Intercontinental was closed as delete. Mabalu (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Libre (disambiguation). (and move disambig to primary). Nothing to merge—all secondary sourced content is already in related articles. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 15:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libre

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

The article is supposedly about the word libre. However, unlike some other articles about words (e.g. [[Fuck]]), it focuses mostly on rather narrowly chosen concepts behind the word (those relating to the various openness movements), rather than usage and cultural significance of the word itself.

Second, very few of the sources used in this article even contain the word "libre". This strongly suggests that this article is pushing an original idea, or at least promoting an unpopular idea (for example that libre is the usual term used to characterise "open" intellectual works, shall we say; in fact, it is rather rare).

Lastly, topics discussed in this article are also covered in Free software, Free content, Free culture movement, and some other articles, which I think are much better suited for that. Even copy-edited under another title this article would be redundant to them.

TL;DR version: WP:POV/WP:UNDUE WP:SYNTH/WP:OR WP:COATRACK WP:CFORK, unsalvageable. — Keφr 12:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator. I looked through the article's history; in 2010 it was a redirect page. About 2011, a user turned it into what appears to be an WP:ESSAY with focus on aspects such as open-source issues. The 'references' that I checked did not contain the word 'libre'. There is a Libre (disambiguation) page, and the top line of that points to this article. My original thought was to turn this into a disambiguation page, but there is already such a page, so in my view, it makes sense to delete it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gratis versus libre (where appropriate), with which it seems to have a great deal of overlap, redirect to the disambig page. Though, as the nom points out, there seems to be a significant amount of straying to other topics and subsequent SYNTH happening that wouldn't be appropriate at that article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 10:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven's Dawn

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

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

Disputed prod. NN video game. Article's creator claims its hard to source, perhaps because it never achieved significant coverage in reliable independent sources - there are 618 articles in Category:1995 video games, so presumably notable games will be sourceable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Old games are notoriously hard to find sources for as they are all in physical magazines that are out of print or at the very least not available on the internet through a simple Google Search. This *is* a notable game.--Coin945 (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure how "keep as creator" is helpful—yes, you want to keep it, no, we're not any closer to comparing it to the GNG. So while the other AfDs from this lot were kept, no similar sourcing shows for this one. The MobyGames listing, while not a reliable source and no good on its own, usually points to the print reviews necessary for making an AfD case. No such sources available for this one. Further, no meaningful hits in WP:VG/RS or Amiga Magazine Rack searches. Yes, it's hard to find the actual out-of-print sources, but it's rare for a notable game to be missing entries in basic databases in this age. czar ♔ 00:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There may very well be sources out there, but I'm having a hard time finding them if there are. I need access to Taiwanese magazine articles. In any case, I have much respect for you I trust your judgement. :)--Coin945 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I think this is a notable game but can't seem to find an sources. I would put this down to the game being released near the pre-internet age, not originally being released in English, and me not having the best ability to scout the internet and print magazines for video game sources. --Coin945 (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I just discovered the game's Chinese name. (After all, it was originaly developed and released on Taiwan). See here for evidence that the chinese name is "中文名称：绝地—众神之咀咒". This seems to have a more successful Google Search.--Coin945 (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting find, but still can't find sources using that name czar ♔ 12:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We really need someone who understands Chinese because I'm seriously struggling. From what I can gather, This appears to be the game's script, This is a chinese book about the game, this appears to be information on the game's development - perhaps given by a member of the team, an article about the game, this appears to be some sort of text. a walk-through perhaps? or a book about the game?--Coin945 (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have clarified not that we can't find sources, but that we can't find reliable sources. This isn't to say that they don't exist at all, but if they're this hard to find, there's no problem with deleting the article for now and reestablishing it once sources are found. czar ♔ 19:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there is some great content in those sources I found - especially the one about the game's development - so I want to seek help from a Wiki-user who understands Chinese before being able to wholeheartedly accept a delete.--Coin945 (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless such a translation confirms somehow that the info comes straight from the dev, that site's a forum and would not be accepted as an adequate reference for the article (nevertheless a secondary source sufficient for the GNG) czar ♔ 05:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@2009193537cherry10, Alvinpiggy, Avrilverdison, Avaria vitievA, B747131, Beijing 28, and Charlie9897:@Chua Fook Loon, Cjsmith.us, Collinlaurence, D.s.ronis, Derekjoe, Dien-Universal, and Epicgenius:@Eshleyy, Haiyizhu, Hoiwa852, Hongdx, Jaguitar, Jeffwang, and Jsjsjs1111:@Kong Yiji, Lennieii, Leos2000171, Luka govisky, Maodi xn, Mini Dragon, and Mufffin man:@Navyau, Philg88, Phung Wilson, Qby, Raymondwy, Rglovernfan1234, and Serenehj:@Shengwei95, SmileBlueJay97, Supersonic Electronic, Tai Khoon, ThatLinuxIT, Tonyxty, and White whirlwind:@Wiggin01, Yienshawn, Yueni, Zanetu, Zywxn, and 丘明利:

I tagged some people from the "Category:User zh-5" page in order to help us out. Essentially we are trying to find sources for an article about a game (Heaven's Dawn) originally released in Taiwan. I worked out what its Chinese name is ("中文名称：绝地—众神之咀咒"), but am having a bit of trouble deciphering the few links I managed to find (see links above). Please can you read those sources and see what can be used to prove the topics' notablility? Or even to help us find more sources (I found this part particularly difficult)? Thanks in advance. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say the correct translation of the name is "Jedi, Curse of the Gods" but it may have been published under a different name in the West. There is a fairly long review here but douban may not be considered a reliable source. There is a walkthru at China Internet Information Center (article link). There are also a number of other sources scattered about. I would call the notability as borderline but with a bit of work ... Philg88 ^♦talk 14:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A word on the name: the Chinese name should be "绝地—众神之咀咒" whereas "中文名称" means "Chinese name." Although literally "绝地" is the translation of Jedi, this game has nothing to do with Lucas's trilogy, so I'd say "Jedi, Curse of the Gods" is not accurate. The links given by Coin945 above, except the one about the dev process, are all the same text, the walkthru found by Philg88 at China Internet Information Center. As to the forum thread about the dev process, it is a autobiography-style memoir. I think this thread is posted by a member of the team as it contains many details which a non-member won't know, but I don't think it adds anything to the significance debate. I also did a Baidu ("largest Chinese search engine") search on the query "绝地——众神的诅咒" and obtained only 326 results, among which many are about Jedis or curses. Not a serious research though, I would suggest it is not very popular in China.Tony Beta Lambda (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, based on the comments of our Chinese speaking friends above and the fact that there is very little in English that would propel this past the GNG. There might be more out there in Chinese that I can't read; if such sources are found post-deletion the article can be restored. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to be any reliable sources to be found of this for the time being. But once there are some, the article can always be restored and improved. GamerPro64 03:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. The sources currently cited in the article are just some game sites that couldn't really be considered respectable for encyclopedic purposes. --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for invite. Not sure whether it is suitable to delete this article. For the Chinese information that I have searched, this game is not a notable game in Taiwan and Chinese world. So maybe it is hard to find information about this game. But one of the sources stated that this game has Finland version. One of the articles about this game I have also found some youtube videos about ways to play this game. One of the Youtube videos. And also, the Chinese name for this game is 绝地—众神之诅咒, "咀" is the wrong word for "诅". --Shengwei95 (Talk) 02:50 12 October 2014 (UTC)

New journal article source: --Coin945 (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-DINA199702049.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522%25E7%25BB%259D%25E5%259C%25B0%25E2%2580%2594%25E4%25BC%2597%25E7%25A5%259E%25E4%25B9%258B%25E8%25AF%2585%25E5%2592%2592%2522%26start%3D20%26newwindow%3D1%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DtDh%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Drcs%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D874

Just to summarize to this point, we still don't have anything to use to write an article. A bunch of links and (apparent?) mentions but few from reliable sources and none with actual information to populate an encyclopedia article. czar ♔ 15:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a Pelit magazine article (excerpted at Mobygames), the aformentioned journal article, a site where the games developers discuss the game in detail, plus this article. I think that enough to demonstrate the games notability, taking into account the fact that we have no deadline and more concrete sources can be located as research deepens.--Coin945 (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobygames is not reliable, and Pelit is behind a paywall, as is this journal article (which could even be an advertisement—we have no idea what it is). The latter two links are not reliable sources. Anyway, this is where I bow out so please ping me if needed czar ♔ 02:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment the argument that because a source is behind a paywall it cannot show notability is nonsense; we use whatever sources are available. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, "the latter two links" refers to the latter two of the four mentioned by Coin (i.e., the supposed game dev discussion and the jedi.org site, not the paywall sites). czar ♔ 06:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 10:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008–14 Irish protests

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

Protests have taken place in Ireland since the foundation of the state and will continue after the austerity measures end. This article (thinly veiled list? ) includes items about industrial relations and student fee protest all which happened before and will continue into the future austerity measures or not. There seems to be no inclusion criteria and I don't think one is possible , when does this article end October and the non austere budget? When the national debt is paid off?

My second issue is these protests are called a series of demonstrations but they lack any unified leadership , aims or goals. Apart from some having similar root cause they seem to be independent of each other. There seems to be a agenda to link these all together

In summary WP:IINFO and WP:NPOV Gnevin (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Gnevin (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a record - the common theme is anti-austerity but I see Anti-austerity protests needs improving. Keep as a minor part of history.PatrickGuinness (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, various protests over a period of time connected by WP:OR. Some of the article which is well sourced already has thier own articles, this isa form coatracking. Murry1975 (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This just a rather random list of protest, not an organised series of protests. The Banner talk 18:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Every country has its share of random anti-something protests. "2008–14 Irish protests" as a topic has had no significant coverage in reliable sources. Scolaire (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and prune (renaming to something like List of protests in Ireland in 2008-14) - I think this could work as a list of protests, removing all suggestions that they're "an organised series of protests" (which as Banner says isn't true, above). There are 2008–14 Irish financial crisis and 2008–14 Irish banking crisis which I figure this was supposed to be a complement to, so why don't we just make it a fork or even merge this in to whichever is more appropriate? ansh666 21:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to go ahead and make this a formal keep !vote (the irony). Of course, the concerns above still stand. ansh666 06:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a state is bankrupted and it affects different people in different ways; the protests may have been sporadic and incoherent but they were a response. (20 years ago we would have said the same about the Roman Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal in Ireland). Otherwise the conclusion is that a financial disaster hit and nobody minded at all. It should be kept and improved. It's not a subject I'm expert on.PatrickGuinness (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was created when the protests in Ireland were a coherent phenomenon, and maintained as they very gradually became less coherent. The logical thing to do with this is to split it into several articles on the various protests that have occurred since 2008, not delete it. I imagine the only reason such a scenario is not explicitly mentioned in WP:ATD is that editors are assumed to have enough common sense to refrain from deleting a large article that has been maintained for years and whose notability was not questioned in that time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Sammy1339 and maybe listify and prune per User:Ansh666 (whose vote seemingly should be interpreted as Keep). --doncram 02:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit more complicated than that. I didn't read through the other two articles I mentioned the existence of clearly enough to figure out if it could or should be merged, and the article is in a form of proseline already, so "listify" is a mere formatting formality. I guess it should be interpreted as "don't delete" - not necessarily keep. ansh666 03:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and prune per Ansh666. They are not all a connected series of protests as implied by the current article. Snappy (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Honest question here. If they aren't connected how would they be in the same list and not be a indiscriminate list of protests? Gnevin (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are connected: they are protests that took place in Ireland during this time period - and the majority of them are related to the two articles I mentioned above. For what "indiscriminate" actually means and how it's applied, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE (part of WP:NOT) and WP:DISCRIMINATE (a complementary essay). ansh666 06:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep, enough to hive off sub-articles on any notable protests into their own separate articles, then either listify this into a list of notable protests in Ireland generally, or redirect it somewhere harmless so that the history is maintained. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Considering the great number of these thruout history, how can they possibly be covered except by dividing up by period? The only question is where there is a logical cutoff, but in the absence of one, an arbitrary one may be necessary. There's enough of an argument abve to make it clear that the starting date is at least logical. It may need further division, but that's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Several "anti-austerity" protests, unrelated to student protests, unrelated to farmers protests, unrelated to strikes, unrelated to public servants' marches, unrelated to water charges marches... This seems to be an arbitrary (why start in 2008? Is the article name going to change every year?) list of protests and actions, some of which will always happen (student and farmer protests have been happening all my life!) and which have nothing in common here except, possibly, money being an issue. Otherwise why not include the pro-choice marches and vigils? The pro-life marches and vigils? The marriage equality and Pride marches? The Gaza solidarity marches? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Penn

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

effectively unsourced, non-neutral BLP The Banner talk 09:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 10:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why this article would be considered for deletion. I removed the links to disambiguation pages (sincerely sorry about that). The bulk of new contributions to the content came directly from in-person interviews with the actor Mr. Edward Penn in Illinois between 2013 to 2014. Please advise if that particular insight needs to be included in the wiki page. Thank you. -DGP

I suggest you start with reading Guidelines for reliable sources. Usually Wikipedia requires third party, reliable, prior published sources. First hand sources (i.e. the actor himself) are rarely accepted as sources to prove notability. Social media are also seldom accepted as source for establishing notability. And last: articles about living persons MUST be sourced, external links are not sources. The Banner talk 19:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself says his principal notability is appearance in one episode of Seinfeld. That's not enough. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete or userfy If someone is willing to take this in hand (I'm thinking of User:DGPatt) work on this further, it may pass muster. Penn does appear in a number of TV shows over the years, so there may be material about him in the TV press. On the other hand, he could turn out to be just another actor with a number of small roles. From the article, it isn't possible to tell which it is. I suspect, however, that it will take some concerted effort to find reliable sources. LaMona (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruan Life Sciences

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

no evidence of notability� DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A quick look on google reveals the only results for this company are business directories and a few articles and forum postings containing a passing mention of the company for sponsoring "Miss Kyrgyzstan 2013". Dolescum (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No real arguments for delete or keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Over Flowers

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

This is an article is on a TV show that already has a page, which covers this topic much more extensively Aequitas333 (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 10:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 10:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I saw on the new page listed a few of these "over flowers" articles also by the way. But yeah seems unotable. Wgolf (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable tv show in South Korea. Kanghuitari (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No need for multiple pages on the exact same topic. Kingjeff (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not same topic. Kanghuitari (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure why this article is up for deletion. I've found it helpful. Revlow (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems legit. differs from the other one. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, according to the discussion and per WP:WITHDRAWN. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of DOS commands

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

The article is pretty much a clear example of what a condensed manual looks like, thus it goes against WP:NOTHOWTO. As such, article might be compacted down to just a bulleted list of DOS commands, but that doesn't seem like something of usable value. Of course, moving the content to Wikiversity is a totally viable option. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this would be best served as a WikiBook, but maybe someone else can suggest a better result. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The form of List of Unix commands (big table plus one to two sentences of summary, links to separate articles if command is notable enough to have one) looks to be a suitable balance of weight and usability. There was a series of individual Unix command articles brought up to AfD, which can be good reference on how to deal with the sections. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 11:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dsimic; this page is not encyclopedic. But like my colleagues, I am looking for an alternative to straight-out deletion, like transwiki. I've recently nominated several articles (like DATE (command)) for deletion and achieved only relative success while suffering from the consequences of others assuming bad faith in me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't get me wrong, I'm always for doing something else instead of simply deleting an article. Hisashiyarouin suggested that we go with compacting the article into something similar to the List of Unix commands, and to me that's a great suggestion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you never meant to delete the article, then this is the wrong forum for you buddy. If no outstanding delete !votes, how about closing this and start an discussion/RFC at the article talk to carry on with the conversion? 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 01:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Totally agreed. I've jumped the gun by spitting out this AfD nomination a bit too quickly, but now I'd say that the article is a keeper – especially after the work done by Mark viking in the last couple of days. I'd like to invite everyone to join a further discussion at Talk:List of DOS commands § Article layout. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I see the message "The article DATE (command) was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 03 October 2014 with a consensus to merge the content into List of DOS commands" on the talk page. Why would y'all come to a consensus to "merge" to an article that you just want to delete? That sounds like a waste of time. You could just merge them all to a new article Computers perform tasks by responding to commands, delete that, and just get back to documenting every last episode of The Simpsons in detail. I guess Fox never wrote a The Simpsons manual. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I went through the article and deleted the content that looked like manual, howto-like material. What is left is a reasonably well-formed list-based article of DOS commands, and short descriptions thereof, with DOS as the parent article. The descriptions could be improved and filled out, but I consider the prose encyclopedic in tone. "MS-DOS" gets 755,000 hits in Google books; the subject is immensely notable and there exists copious documentation out there to support descriptions, history and impact of the commands in the list. Most books on DOS I have seen, especially those on batch programming, discuss the DOS commands as a list, hence, the list of commands is also very likely to be notable. Many of the commands are already supported by main articles. Some commands could use sources, but this is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, and not a reason for deletion. A highly notable topic for the parent article, and a well-formed list, per WP:LISTN and WP:SAL, suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mladen Savović

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

Unsourced biography of an apparently unnotable person. Created by three single-purpose accounts: Joksimovic (talk · contribs), Mladjo (talk · contribs), and EleonoraP (talk · contribs). bender235 (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article looks like a claim of significance, and we have no evidence that he passes WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above arguments. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep. The delete arguments are mostly "this isn't important", but our criteria for establishing notability is based on references to reliable sources, and those seem to exist in sufficient numbers. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Latvia relations

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

the whole article is based on a single one day visit to Latvia by the Bangladeshi foreign minister. That has been the only minister visit between the 2 countries in 21 years of relations. There is no evidence of significant ongoing relations between the countries except this one day news spike. LibStar (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS--114.81.255.40 (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG, five references with indepth coverage. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 references referring to one day of relations. And 2 of them are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the 'facts' or 'events' in the article add up to anything of the slightest notability. Bored mumbler in suit shakes hands with minor numpty from somewhere or other. Gee whiz. Small brief splash noticed in very small pond when someone puts on their sunglasses. Gosh. If we can't delete this under the GNG then it's an utterly useless criterion. Notable? No. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You gotta be kidding! In 2012, Bangladeshi foreign minister paid an official visit to Latvia, Bangladesh and Latvia have signed an MoU recently on agricultural sector, all these things show that the relationship has become significant and is growing at a good pace. The article also meets the general notability guidelines since there are several references from reliable sources with significant coverage. I can show you more [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. There are many information to add. Nomian (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yep one single visit in one day by a foreign minister is the only visit in over 20 years of relations. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a recent visit which indicates there are more to come. And most importantly the article meets general notability guidelines, so according to the policies it should be kept. Nomian (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"More to come" is WP:CRYSTAL. most of those additional sources are primary, they refer to a new ambassador who isn't even based in Latvia. Offering condolences about the ferry disaster is WP:ROUTINE coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is obviously notable and adequately sourced. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the relations between countries that have officially recognized eachother, have made an official visit, and have signed a written agreement is more than just "news" and there is no good reason for deleting it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all in just one day of 21 years of relations, just one official visit, it wasn't an agreement, it was a mere memorandum of understanding. LibStar (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge I agree that single meetings between country representatives, even if they result in some useful agreements, do not deserve their own article. The possible exception may be meetings that result in major treaties (cf Helsinki_Accords) but these are rarely single events. This information should be merged into the page on Bangladesh, preferably in the area "Foreign relations and military" which is heavy on military and rather light on foreign relations. In fact, those two topics could be split, and there would seem then to be room for a more in-depth discussion of foreign relations. LaMona (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only a single meeting, I have shown other sources. And the foreign relations section of country articles are only reserved for neighboring or rival countries and countries with strategic partnership or a strong alliance. Nomian (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG.--cyclopia ^speak! 17:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 06:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is a rather borderline article. I'm ultimately going to vote keep because there was an official state visit and an official treaty signed between the two nations, in addition to some other interactions over the years. Likewise, quite a few sources have been presented. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not a state visit. A state visit means prime minister or president visit. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleone Hodges

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

Non-notable DavidSSabb (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are eleven other Appalachian State University faculty with Wikipedia biographies. Mrs. Hodges's story is comparable to the others but different in its own way. There are some twelve links with her article to other articles. She was a college basketball player and senior golfer as well as educator and secretary to the parks commission in Boone, N.C. She set many golfing records in her category and played until she was ninety-three. Besides her obituaries, there are two newspaper articles independent of her as well as a statement about her career read on the floor of the U.S. House by Representative Virginia Foxx. She was also a descendant of a political family from Louisiana. Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although she sounds like an interesting person to have known, I can see nothing here that would be considered notable outside of her community of friends and neighbors. She does not qualify for academic notability, nor for sports notability. The entire article was written by Billy Hathorn, who (understandably) is voting "keep" but who, IMO, does not understand the role of Wikipedia. Billy, this is well-researched and finely written, but WP is not the proper venue for your work. I do hope you find or create such a venue. Note that there is a new wiki service called "Local Wiki" where you can create a wiki for whatever locality or level of locality you would like - town, city, county... Your articles would be great in a resource like that. It is, however, new-ish so you'd be kind of pioneering (e.g. there isn't a huge community to answer questions, etc.). Best of luck. LaMona (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is filled with minor incidents and local media coverage but presents nothing that could be used to show a pass of WP:PROF, WP:GNG, or any other notability criterion. And although living to 103 is quite an accomplishment, it's again not particularly notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 06:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically because of NOTMEMORIAL. I checked the other articles in the category of Appalachian State faculty--almost all have more substantial accomplishments (I nominated 1 for afd). ~
Keep if she were an athlete with this level of sourcing, this would be a featured article.Jacona (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- She was an athlete, at LSU, and as a golfer in her later years, she made a hone-in-one past the age of ninety. There are featured stories about her prior to her death. Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — as others have mentioned, fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:GNG, and even WP:PROF. Sources cited are either obits of her death or her coverage in them is incidental to something else. --slakr^\ talk / 10:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. there seems to be an adequate consensus. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Jaffrey

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

The references to this article appear to be essentially press releases; I am unsure if there is any actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden -related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tough to find RS for someone who is famous for being on YouTube as you can't really filter out YouTube to look for reliable sources - any RS are obviously going to mention YouTube and other Keywords that usually denote Unreliable. But she's nowhere near being Perez or Susie Bubble. Maybe further down the line, once she's had a lot more attention, but for now, not notable. Mabalu (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep given that there are a few in-depth sources, but yes could be more.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above no evidence of Notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 05:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SPA made self-praise article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 10:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music. This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (Note: AfD filed by User:Fathom1998)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I represent the artist and as a BLP she has requested it be taken down as per the WP policies on notability, conflict of interest. Thanks. We are happy to submit via official email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fathom1998 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the process here apologies, Wikipedia is not so easy for us not familiar with the many processes. I will remove the deletion tag I put up as it says "keep" in the message? Is that correct? This page sits really high in the search for my artist and we would like to sort it out either way. Thanks in advance! Fathom1998

The notice should be left on the article to advertise this discussion and allow others to participate. I will put the notice back up for you, and the discussion can continue here as to whether or not the article should be deleted. Thanks. Tgeairn (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a bit unusual, as the AfD notice has been removed from the article for some time now. The usual search for sources finds nothing to establish notability under WP:NENT. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 05:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources to meet the requirements of any of our notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Clackson

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

no evidence of notability ; no independent references DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR look like the most appropriate notability criteria for this one but in either case we need independent and reliable in-depth sources about the subject or his works, and we only have sources by him (or non-independent sources such as author bios). Incidentally, the article creator GlobalInsight (talk · contribs) has been blocked for having a bad user name but another single-purpose account, IskanderArfa (talk · contribs) has started editing the article and removed the AfD notice from it. I restored the notice and warned the user not to do that. The same user added a "keep" comment to the talk page of this AfD, but without a rationale. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Now a third spa, TunisianPrince (talk · contribs), has removed the notice again. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show notability as an academic (one source lists him as a grad student). Lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an academic no, but would keep due to notability as political analyst and commentator. Appearing on Channel One Russia (which is the biggest channel in the country) on the news at 9 pm is a pretty big deal. Also he debated on political TV shows with ambassadors and well-known journalists. And his articles have been published on two-think tanks. I would say that is significant enough to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperHybrid (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

people who have done no actual work of significance but have nonetheless appeared om interviews on the internet and other programs and quoted for their opinion, ard not notable,any more than their eqwuivelent would have been in a previous generation when they were writing letters to the editors. It not the fact that they have published work that patterns, but that other people have published works about them. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Caesar

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

Not yet notable. Student award only DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant self promotion. No claim to notability. I added speedy deletion tag, and this, along with a notability tag, were repeatably deleted by the user who was warned not to do so. Originally title Jamal caesar with lower case surname and this was speedied. There is no doubt that the editor is the subject of the article. Editor is new, and only editing this article and two others that link to it. The user has replied to the deletion tag by claiming that deletion is racially motivated. He went on to claim that the page is getting a "fan base" and is "on the rise". Hardly notable. There are also two other users supporting this editor, but I have no doubt they are sockpuppets. They're new, and only supporting and editing this entry. (As the other article was deleted I can't recall the sock's names.). --Dmol (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in third party reliable sources found. No claim of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ansh666 12:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States

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

Let me start with the simplest. This is a content fork of an otherwise comprehensive and succinct article, an effort to expand coverage of single news event and to vaguely predict a coming disaster. This article is unnecessary coverage of a larger event that strongly demonstrates a regional bias. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only similar article this is a fork of is 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak, which, at 211 KB is not succinct. The regional bias is assumed, but there's nothing in the article that remotely seems to predict the future. --Light show (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close this AfD/or Keep. We don't use AfD's to settle content disputes. Here's the situation. The Ebola epidemic involves 6 countries. The article Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa gives poor coverage of the individual countries. The article is too big. There was discussion on the talk page about new articles. Nobody objected. The articles got created. Tonight, Floydian, without any discussion or consensus, went from article to article deleting them and turning them into redirects to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Another editor showed up on 2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States and started deleting whole sections without first discussing on the talk page. He engaged in battleground behaviour both on talk and edit warred on the article. Both these editors have done nothing to contribute to these articles. Their editing has only been disruptive. This AfD is an extension of that disruption.
Diffs of page blanking and changing them to redirects without any discussion and/or consenus:
blanked Guinea
blanked Nigeria
blanked Sierra Leone
blanked Liberia

This is disruptive behaviour. I'd go to ANI, but I'm too tired. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless if this remains the only case of EVD diagnosed with in the USA, the article should remain, however it will require some expansion into sections including how the locals in the area reacted "Power-washing sidewalks and scrubbing common areas", the 100+ people he had contact with that are been followed up on, the family put under armed guard Quarantine ^[2] , and possibly also include more info about Americans that were medivaced out. This 'stub' will help keep much info out of the main outbreak page that currently is extremely large. Gremlinsa (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 1st known case of Ebola in the USA is a historical event. Wikipedia is not a place for political correctness. History must be recorded here. LiberatorLX (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs improvement but there is no reason to delete it. Miqrogroove (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most educational and encyclopedic and wide coverage. — Cirt (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The people want it. tharsaile (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is really preposterous in two ways: all the other countries' outbreaks, even Nigeria's, have articles, and this is widely covered in the media with over 10,000 hits so far. The article is being worked on, and it still needs improvement, but it's a quite notable subject and is a pretty large content fork from the main article, Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, which is too big to begin with.
On another point I agree with SW3 5DL – Floydian's blanking of the other articles on the other countries' outbreaks without discussion was not in good faith. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulhadi Najjar

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

I'm a little bit unsure whether to call this person notable, so I would like to gain some concensus. The article states that he has published many articles on environmental issues, but the publication does not have an article on Wikipedia. There are no other claims of significance or notability in the article. Usually, I would CSD an article like this, but it appears to have been written following the MoS. I'd like to hear some views on this one. Osarius - Want a chat? 20:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep as the publication has an article in the Arabic Wikipedia which states that this publication is the the first and the leading environment magazin in the Arab world. the publication, Environment & Development Magazine, page on Facebook is liked by +591,000 people compared with +98,000 people like the page of the Arabic edition of Nature Magazine. If you check the Arabic Wikipedia you will find about 335,000 articles which doesn't mean that the publications or persons listed in English Wikipedia, and not listed in the Arabic one, are not noteworthy. This unsigned comment was added by Abdulhadi.Najjar (talk) on 21:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ because the person's awards mentioned in the infobox of the article are notable and they are well referenced. This unsigned comment was added by Abdulhadi.Najjar (talk) on 21:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not, see my comments below. --Bejnar (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as it could be more suitable to find sources about the person in his original Arabic name عبد الهادي النجار rather than the English name:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This unsigned comment was added by Abdulhadi.Najjar (talk) on 22:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: The article was created by a user with the same name as the article's subject. Osarius - Want a chat? 20:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ because this does not mean that the information listed in the article are not valid as long as they are well referenced and subjective. This unsigned comment was added by Abdulhadi.Najjar (talk) on 21:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. He fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTEBLP and WP:ACADEMIC. The Environment and Development magazine may be a perfectly reliable source, but it does not provide substantial coverage of Abdulhadi Najjar. His page there merely lists the article that he has written for them. The UN Habitat Dubai International Award for Best Practices may be a nice award but it is not at the level that usually accords notability by itself, and it is not veriable that he won it. None of the arguments stated above really involve Wikipedia guidelines on notability. Yes the project of the UN Habitat Dubai is verifiably in Homs and belongs to the Homs City Council, and Abdulhadi Najjar was the contact person, it is not clear that Abdulhadi Najjar won any award. The Ford Foundation award is not verifiable. The article says without indicating a source that the Ford award was a grant to the ""Environment News Website". It is not clear what the relationship between that newsletter and Abdulhadi Najjar might be. In all no reliable sources substantively about Abdulhadi Najjar are available. No awards are verifiable. --Bejnar (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main reason is that all of the edits of the content were done by User:Abdulhadi.Najjar. Unless this is a name as common as "John Smith" in the US, then this article is the result of a clear Conflict of Interest. There are other reasons as well: the fact that the journal is well known does not mean that any author who publishes in the journal is notable; the article has also been marked as a copyright violation. It seems that this could have qualified for speedy delete. I also concur with the statements of Bejnar. LaMona (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATD as the article is a stub. I am improving WP:IMPROVE the article taking into consideration all above mentioned worries, and the references in Arabic language. --J.Domna (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)— J.Domna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This may take more than one edit so bear with me. This comment addresses three of the citations that were added by SPA editor J.Domna. The first was added to substantiate the Ford Foundation award, namely http://wraqat.typepad.com/4eco/2004/12/__5.html. This cites the environmental newsletter that Abdulhadi Najjar founded and works for. It is not independent. It is a press release about the grant from the Ford Foundation and it does not mention Abdulhadi Najjar at all. The second citation also goes to the Ford Foundation grant http://www.wam.ae/en/news/international/1395227543892.html. It is an article about the thirteen 2005 Ford Conservation and Environmental Grants given in the Middle-East. It has a single entry that is potentially relevant here, the complete entry is: "Grant awarded: US$5,000, to Environment News Website, submitted by Abdul Hadi Al Najjar, Homs, Syria, in the category of Environmental Education." That provides verification of the grant to the publication, not to a person, but it does not provided any substantial coverage of Abdulhadi_Najjar. The third citation is to the Riyadh News Forum. It is primarily about the Egyptian environmental editor Khaled Ghanem. It mentions Abdulhadi Najjar in two sentences, the first where it compares Khaled Ghanem and Abdulhadi Najjar; and the second where it states that Khaled Ghanem see Abdulhadi Najjar not as a compeditor but as a colleage. Again not substantive.--Bejnar (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure what the claim to notability is here, but the English language sources sure aren't providing it. If there are Arabic sources that establish notability, we don't have that in the article (at least not enough to meet WP:CREATIVE). Bejnar's comments cover everything else. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Multiple "keep" lines by User:Abdulhadi.Najjar struck out above. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bejnar.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bejnar's comment related to the The third citation to the Riyadh News Forum delivers unbalanced impression. This could be related to language dificulties as the source is in Arabic language. I am quoting from the Arabic source (The main motivation of Najjar to develop this site is to prove that Arabic environmental education would include a successful trial carried out by one person through internet as a positive sample should be introduced to many environment and media institutions that are not active to provide useful services for the readers claiming that they do not have sufficient financial, human, and infrastructural resources. In fact, after one year, this site is a certificate of a great achievement for this ambitious one-man's efforts.) It is quite clear, in the Arabic texts, that Mr. Najjar's work is independent from Mr. Ghanem's works.J.Domna (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two Arabic sentences quoted are in the context of Khaled Ghanem's web site. and discuss Ghanam's motivation. They read in full (not the abridged version above): وقد كان الدافع الرئيسي للنجار في تطوير هذا الموقع هو إثبات أن العمل الإعلامي البيئي العربي يمكن أن يتضمن تجربة ناجحة يقوم بها شخص واحد عبر الإنترنت كنموذج ايجابي يتم تقديمه للكثير من المؤسسات البيئية والإعلامية التي تتقاعس عن تقديم خدمات مفيدة للقراء إما بحجة نقص التمويل أو نقص الكوادر والبنى التحتية. وبالفعل فإن الموقع يشكل حاليا وبعد سنة من إطلاقه الرسمي شهادة إنجاز كبيرة لهذا الجهد الفردي الطموح، والذي كافأته مؤسسة فورد مؤخرا بواحدة من جوائزها البيئية البسيطة على سبيل الدعم والتقدير.لمية. You be the judge whether it is a passing mention or not. --Bejnar (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. These sentences discuss Mr. Najjar's motivation not Mr. Ghanem's one as you stated. These words الدافع الرئيسي للنجار are translated as Najjar's main motivation. (Ghanem's main motivation) are written in Arabic like this (الدافع الرئيسي لغانم). With due respect, I am a native Arabic speaker and I can judge Arabic very well. Yet, it is a great effort that Bejnar was able to extract the exact translated text from its Arabic origin.J.Domna (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the users of Google Translate service: Najjar (Arabic: نجار) is translated from Arabic to English as Carpenter according to its meaning in Arabic. J.Domna (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if taken together, the sources listed above don't provide much of a basis for creating a coherent article, and fall far short of establishing notability in accordance with our guidelines. Too run-of-the-mill for inclusion here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Call to reevaluate the article itself upon improvement WP:IMPROVE as most of the above mentioned concerns were solved, from my point of view, including notability WP:NOTEBLP, independent sources, and creativity WP:CREATIVE. J.Domna (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of the effort you have put into improving the article. However, having re-reviewed the article and sources, I must reaffirm my delete recommendation (already listed above). There is just not enough here to establish notability under our guidelines. Tgeairn (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur. In spite of the recent changes, there still is not nearly enough reliably sourced information to build an article and to establish notability, so I also reaffirm my delete !vote. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, moved back to the user page--Ymblanter (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Curtin

Yes AllyD (This was moved from User:Billz8's userpage and really belongs back there, not in article space.)...I just went back to move it back to my userpage, after using it to demonstrate Wikipedia to my students, but someone has re-edited the article since and it won't revert. I'm not adept at wiki-coding, can someone with more experience help me move it back there please? Thanks, Bill — Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Probably a good man, but not a shred of notability Staszek Lem (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree about the notability. The creator of the article and the subject appear to be one and the same. Jus da fax 05:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible CSD A7: No evidence or anything like a claim to biographical notability. This was moved from User:Billz8's userpage and really belongs back there, not in article space. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshman Narayan

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

I was about to put a prod for this, but then I realized that this is a way too soon case so a AFD instead. Wgolf (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, two notable films and a likelihood of a further career in films. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-A likelihood in a career in films is not quite a keep (that still goes under too soon quite a bit) Wgolf (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls in WP:TOOSOON category. Athachil (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few articles on the internet which are notable. Maybe he is a rising performer, but still has some time before he becomes popular. If he has done a lot of work, then we need more sources. --Dhwanikaxoxo (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn's Concerto (South Korean TV series)

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

Looking over this-trying to find any info about this show and none so far, with no refs either. Wgolf (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No refs to support that this is actually real, fail WP:N. Could even be a hoax or a wish of an overzealous fan. --Michaela den (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't wanna rain on your parade, but just searching for it in google shows me a youtube video of episode 1. Also IMBD and Dramawiki links. Also a few more results that were removed by DCMA. Second page gives reviews. From what I remember TV shows are relevant when they are broadcast. Someone just would need to find some reliable information on this. 188.95.26.178 (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion I just checked and what I found was for the Taiwanese series. I should drink more coffee. Sorry. 11:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)11:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
(cannot into Korean) Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Does not find anything by name of drama + name of first listed actress (in Chinese). The kowp article on that timeslot (ko:JTBC 월화드라마) indicates that other dramas have filled through the remainder of the year (i.e. cannot find that combination of Hangul anywhere). And I am calling it the best I can do here. Come back when we have a definitive scheduled broadcast? 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Addendum 12:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 18:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanban Tool

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted via AfD for these same problems, but recreated via AfC. As with the previous AfD: Non-notable software with insufficient reliable, secondary, independent sources available. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding sources - The AfC was approved for having fixed the sourcing problem and being sufficiently different from the deleted version, but in looking closely at the refs, I'm seeing the same problems and some familiar links. The Raju ref, which is duplicated in the list, is a couple sentences of promotional copy in a list of 15 on a website of generally dubious reliability; everything by David Anderson is self-published; Mead is again a small item in a longer list; Moran is self-published but borderline; the Shore Labs refs are written by this company; Github is certainly not a reliable source; Noorani et al. links to Kanban Tool with a referral link (i.e. they're paid for mentioning it); Liles is a primary source (interview); Marczak appears to just be a list. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am a Kanban enthusiast and Kanban user. This is the only article about one of the very first and most recognizable software tools for Kanban, and I feel it deserves to be kept. I do believe that this article is not only based on creditable sources but it is also useful to Wikipedia readers. Looking closely at the refs, I cannot agree that the sources provided are of poor value or little notability and reliability.

In answer to Rhododendrites reason for deletion, I would like to defend and clarify the sources/refs that the author has added.

Although David Anderson hasn't got a dedicated article, he is clearly stated as the person who formulated Kanban method for development process [in the article on Kanban (development) ^[3], which references to the exact same books, as the article on Kanban Tool]. Therefore I trust, that it should not be discredited as a source. Also, books by this particular author are greatly regarded in the Kanban community. So the fact that D. Anderson self-publishes his own books should not be equalized with their low reliability, as both his books and he himself are recognized and respected by the Kanban society (including Wikipedia's articles on Kanban). Therefore, David Anderson is perceived as a father of Kanban in development by Kanban community as well as a developer of the Kanban method by Wikipedia. If he is so insignificant then why his opinions are stated in Kanban (development) Wikipedia's article? I don't think there is any more notable person in terms of Kanban in development.

The Marczak reference might be perceived as a list, but in fact it is a list of the top 15 Startup Fest Festival's finalists. StartUp Fest Festival is apparently the most important startup competition for aspiring founders, ground-breaking innovators, and entrepreneurs from all over Poland, and in itself I consider a good reason for notability. This implies that - out of thousands of companies taking part in this competition - Kanban Tool was selected a notable, outstanding one. Furthermore, I've found that Marczak's blog antyweb.pl is 1 of 10 most popular blogs and 1 of 3 most popular tech-blogs in Poland. Sources: ^[4] ^[5] ^[6]

The Liles article indeed seems a primary source, but I would imagine, that the reason there is a reference to it, is that it contains an objective mention of Kanban Tool's success. As the introduction reads, Kanban Tool was awarded the Best Start-Up With Global Potential award by the US-Polish Trade Council for 2012, and this, I feel, is a solid evidence of the service's notability. Furthermore, it provides an insider's look into how this company works and how the service was created. Source: ^[7]

The particular listing on Github simply confirms that Kanban Tool uses backbone.js.

The mention at bitelia.com might be a small item, but the content seems to be written by independent writers, associated with bitelia.com. I feel that this shouldn't discredit the content, which is genuine and objective.

References to shorelabs.com and kanbantool.com websites do not stray from the general pattern of self-referencing ever-present in Wikipedia articles. The facts remain, that no matter how many reviewers write about Kanban Tool, the largest amount of useful information is being published on the service provider's own website. If the idea of Wikipedia is to deliver knowledge - this, I think, is the author's attempt at allowing the public access to the most appropriate and insightful facts on Kanban Tool.

The current references in the Kanban Tool article include three insightful reviews that seem not to have been taken into account when proposing the article for deletion. They are: Startup Magazine (in Polish) [Nieśmiertelne karteczki w wirtualnej odsłonie". Startup Magazine (in Polish) (Poland): 6–7. January 2013. ISSN 2083-909X], as well as one in German in Linux Magazin [Eckenfels, M. (June 2014). "Tolle Tafeln". Linux Magazin (in German) (Germany: Linux New Media): 44–45. ISSN 1432-640X], and one in English [Gibson, Jake (20 May 2014). "The Best Software Tools to Run a Startup". Entrepreneur Magazine (United States: Entrepreneur Media). ISSN 0163-3341]. All of them were published by magazines regarded as small business authority, and all of them are notable, independent, printed sources of information. I trust that content, that was published in national magazines is a great proof of Kanban Tool's reliability, as well as notability and would like for Wikipedia to, please, respect that. If those are not reliable sources then what are?

I would also like to add that Kanban Tool was included in the shortlist of Steve Blank's Startup Tools, which wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article's references. Steve Blank is a notable entrepreneur and start-up expert; ^[8]. And after a quick research I found some other good references in the following: Studyguide for Matching Supply with Demand: An Introduction to Operations Management by Gerard Cachon ISBN 9780073525204 ^[9] Agile SAP: Introducing flexibility, transparency and speed to SAP implementations by Sean Robson ISBN 9781849284455 ^[10] ^[11]

I feel that, even though not perfect, the article is vital to the Kanban community and it deserves to be edited and improved rather than deleted. --AgileWriter (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AgileWriter: Thanks for weighing in and providing some leads for people to follow. Regarding the existing sources, though, your explanations for why they're valid conflict in some ways with Wikipedia policy for what is necessary to establish notability, which is somewhat different from what is considered a reliable source for other purposes (terms like notability, reliable source, and verifiability are kind of technical terms on Wikipedia, which can be complicated and indeed a little annoying if you're just starting to explore them). A couple examples: Although David Anderson hasn't got a dedicated article, he is clearly stated as the person who formulated Kanban method for development process [in the article on Kanban (development) [1], which references to the exact same books, as the article on Kanban Tool]. Therefore I trust, that it should not be discredited as a source -- It's not discredited because he's not knowledgeable; it's discounted because all of those sources are self-published, and self-published by someone with invested interests no less. The Wikipedia perspective on the issue is that in order to maintain a neutral point of view, we as editors need a quasi-objective measure of reliability, so primary sources are ruled out because if something is truly respected or well-known, other people will have written about it (as a secondary source) and it's those we should cite. no matter how many reviewers write about Kanban Tool, the largest amount of useful information is being published on the service provider's own website. -- Indeed reliable for, say, backing up some information about the software, but again doesn't help to establish notability -- which isn't to say it's not accurate information, but that notability is measured only by secondary sources. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I agree that David Anderson may be perceived as a primary source, but none the less, I think his books are influential, objective and worth keeping as a reference.

I still think that this article is about a notable subject, and should be kept. Apart from the 9 good references originally posted in the Kanban Tool article (it's 9, once you exclude the one discounted as a list [Raju, S. (23 January 2011). "Top 15 Kanban Tools in an Agile World". Tools Journal. Retrieved 30 June 2014.] and all Shore Labs references), there are the 5 new ones that I found and posted in my comment above, including non-self-published books.

Regarding secondary sources coverage, it seems that there are many academic works referencing Kanban Tool, all written on the subject of Agile methods, created and reviewed by independent researchers. Just today, after a quick search, I've found the following from different universities around the world: CORONA, E., & PANI, F. E. (2013). A Review of Lean-Kanban Approaches in the Software Development. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications, 10(1), 1-13^[12], Rola, L. D. (2011). Kanban for Small Software Projects. Project Background Report, The University of Manchester, Manchester^[13], da Silva, J. N. (2014). Projeto de Conclusão de Curso Título: Uma ferramenta para cálculo de Métricas Lean, BSI UFRPE^[14], Chekhlov, A (2014). ScrumBan pro malé a střední firmy, MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA FAKULTA INFORMATIKY, Brno^[15].

This proves that the reliable, secondary sources are there, and finding even more shouldn't be an issue. I have now added them to the original article.

The fact, that different people write about Kanban Tool independently, and in different countries, really does prove the software's notability, or at least gives reasonable doubt to the claim that the article's subject is not notable, and for such, deletion would be inappropriate.--AgileWriter (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merging some material. In the explantion above, AgileWriter says that many references are essentially the same as the article Kanban (development). this is a reason for merging, not for having two articles. It is fairly obvious that an article about the method will mention the various devices; the references added are pparently about using the method in general. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After taking a significant amount of time to check all of the english language refs linked above and in the article, there is no significant RS coverage of this specific software. There is extensive coverage of the concept, not the software. Most refs which do cover the software are incidental mentions in lists of various software tools using the kanban concept. The refs that have more extensive coverage of the software fail to meet the standards of RS in various ways pointed out by Rhododendrites above.Dialectric (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dialectric: Seems bizarre to disregard all these 20+ sources - it is a wider and better coverage than most of project management software articles I came across on Wikipedia. But my point is, that such coverage in many indpendent sources, both in printed newspapers, academic works and books, all found in short time (by me), give reasonable doubt to the claim that the article's subject is not notable, and per Wikipedia notability guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability) "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.". Given the above, this article should be kept with all problems highlighted, so that it can be later improved. AgileWriter (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NPASR (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 02:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Valadão

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Subject satisfies requirements of WP:NACTOR thereby endorsing keep consensus. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Tozer

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

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

Non-notable voice actress. Orange Mike | Talk 02:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nominator isn't being specific. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to satisfy WP:N. I can probably find a few more sources to add. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - "The nominator isn't being specific" is a pointless comment to make, The second states "I can probably find a few more sources to add" but 7 hours later and still hasn't even bothered adding (or atleast finding!) sources.... Anyway I've searched and found absolutely nothing so fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I haven't bothered after 7 hours. Right. Nice way to make it look like I'm a lazy slob. Do you realise that some of us do have lives here? As I've stated on other AfDs, I will NOT add sources till the AfD is closed. If you want add it and go around calling me a lazy fellow who hasn't bothered, go ahead. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that, We all are busy and have lives I get that, If you were able to spend 5 minutes writing your keep !vote - You would've had 5 minutes to do a quick search ...., As for me providing sources - I'll repeat the above - "I've searched and found absolutely nothing so fails GNG".... –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did search, that is why I made the statement in the first place. However, I did not have time to do an in depth search because I have had a busy day. Your statement still hasn't bothered adding (or atleast finding) is what I have an issue with. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for an actress is demonstrated by the presence in the article of reliable source coverage, not by the simple assertion that one "could probably" find more. That's especially true when there aren't any reliable sources in the article to begin with — the article is relying entirely on her own Twitter feed and a blurb on Crunchy Roll, meaning that what we're waiting for here isn't "more reliable source coverage", but rather "any reliable source coverage at all". Delete unless some sourcing improvement actually starts showing up. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The absence of citations in an article does not indicate that the subject is not notable. In order to assuage some of the concerns of the users who have protested against the article, I have located a few additional sources which can be used to improve the quality of citation currently provided:

http://news.everfree.net/tag/kira-tozer/

http://www.dvdinform.cz/73089-intersonic-nova-vcelka-maja-2/

http://www.wevancouver.com/arts/reel-people/nominees-announced-for-2014-ubcp-actra-awards-1.1385194

http://www.ubcp.com/awards-submission/

http://worldnewsbreakers.com/michael-daingerfield/

http://turntherightcorner.com/2014/04/01/now-available-to-own-anchorman-2-47-ronin-knights-of-badassdom-and-more/

and an additional source: http://www.mediamikes.com/2013/03/blu-ray-review-inuyasha-the-final-act-set-1-2/ Silver Buizel (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are acceptably reliable sources that would demonstrate notability — they're all non-notable blogs, not real media with a demonstrable track record of editorial standards. So no, you haven't assuaged anything. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Davey2010 tells us he searched and could not find sources. Fine. Rsrikanth05 tells his own searches found enough to support his vote. Fine again. Silver Buizei actually brought some forward as a means to support WP:NRVE. And Bearcat... S.B. is correct. Topic notability is determined through sources being available, NOT through their being in an article on that topic. And yes, the nominator could certainly have given us a reason beyond his unexplained WP:JNN. However, as WP:BLP tells us that biographies of living persons should be dealt with quickly, carefully, and should depend on high-quality sources. WP:SOFIXIT, anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, topic notability is demonstrated by the availability of sourcing, rather than by every possible source already having been added to the article. However, nobody has yet demonstrated that even one properly reliable source is actually available — SB's sources are all either primary or user-generated blog sources which don't pass our reliable sourcing rules, and nobody else in this discussion has offered any other sources at all. So my comment is still wholly correct as written and I stand by it until somebody actually ponies up some reliable sources either in the article or here. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the sheer body of her work can be verified... "Encyclopedia of Television Shows", "The Year in Television", "Television Specials", "TV Guide". We certainly need not do so here, but it seems some editorial staffs outside Wikipedia must feel it worth placing her into the historic records. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her name being mentioned in directory listings of the TV series she's been in is not substantive coverage of her — it's WP:ROUTINE namecheck coverage in directories that would be expected to contain routine namechecks of her in the cast lists of shows she's been in the casts of. That's not evidence that any "editorial staffs outside Wikipedia" are going out of their way to "place her into the historic records" — it's exactly the sort of routine directory coverage that all actors always get. Our notability requirements on here, however, require substantive coverage in which she's the subject, not just directory listings namechecking her. Bearcat (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... while meeting WP:GNG is the easiest way to show notability... it's not the only way. Meeting the SNG WP:ENT simply requires that certain attributes be verifiable without it also mandating GNG be met. If meeting the GNG were the only notability guide, we'd have no need for the SNGs to ever exist in the first place. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subject-specific inclusion guidelines do not constitute an exemption from our standards for quality of sourcing — the only difference between passing those and passing GNG is in how much of it you need to provide to start an article with. For instance, if the claim is that a person passes ENT because they won a major acting award (Oscar, Emmy, CanScreen, etc.), then all you need is one media source which names them as the winner — but it still needs to be a reliable media source, not IMDb or the awarding organization's own PDF list of its winners. But claiming ENT rather than GNG doesn't exempt you from having to source the article at all, and it doesn't exempt you from the standards for what does or doesn't constitute valid reliable sourcing — the only thing you get from it is a reduction in the number of valid reliable sources it takes to start the article with, and even then that reduction is still not to "zero".

Further, the problem with ENT #1 (the only point in that list that I can see her even approaching on the basis of what's been written here) is that it's a generic and subjective criterion that casts its net so wide and loose that virtually all actors in existence can and regularly do claim to meet it whether they actually do or not. (I can't even tell you how many times I've seen bit-part actors try to get Wikipedia articles by claiming that they were an ENT-passing "star" of a TV series on which they appeared as an unnamed character in a single scene of a single episode.) So it's not the assertion of passing ENT that gets a person past ENT, it's the quality of sourcing that can be provided to verify the accuracy of the assertion. She doesn't have to have made the cover of Time or People to qualify for an article on here, but you still need more than the mere presence of her name in a couple of directories. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no claim being made here about awards... that would be WP:ANYBIO, not WP:ENT. It's Apples and Oranges... not a matter of thinking the GNG "over-rules" the SNGs or about thinking the SNGs "over-rule" the GNG. The two are intended to compliment inter-changeably in a common sense consideration of notability. See WP:GNGACTOR. But if the guideline calling only for verifiability of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" in the lack of SIGCOV can be ignored, then it would seem you're advocating the revocation of all SNGs. If you start the revocation RFC, let's see who agrees. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there was any claim being made in this article about awards; I gave that as an example of how the difference between passing WP:NACTOR and passing WP:GNG is a question of how many reliable sources you have to provide to start a keepable article, and not an exemption from our standards for the basic reliability of the sources themselves. It only takes one or two reliable sources to start a keepable article about a person who passes a subject-specific inclusion guideline, rather than the dozen or more it takes to pass GNG, but the sources still have to meet the same standard of reliability either way. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examples aside, it seems we agree... WP:ENT requires verifiability of career and multiple significant roles... WP:GNG requires quantity of sources speaking toward the person. Meeting WP:NACTOR does not mandate also meeting WP:GNG, but meeting either does require WP:V in WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing found to establish notability. Searches find blogs, SPS, and passing coverage only. WP:NACTOR is pretty vague, but we don't have the sources to meet even that nebulous criteria. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While Tozer hasn't had a huge, overwhelming amount of coverage ([38], [39] are examples of her coverage), she would still pass notability guidelines per WP:NACTOR. She's had at least two major roles in notable TV series. Sure, they're animated series, but the fact is that they are still major roles in notable series. Kagome is one of the two most major characters in the Inuyasha franchise and while she only voiced the character for The Final Act, that still counts towards notability. Tozer is also one of the main characters in the Littlest Pet Shop TV series, which is also a notable TV show. It's not as infamous as Inuyasha is, but it's still a notable television show. So here we have her performing as two of the main characters in two notable television shows, which would definitely show that she passes notability guidelines. That's just for the two shows that I'm personally familiar with. A look at her other VA credits shows that she was a major character in Hot Wheels Battle Force 5 (54 episodes), Maya the Bee (2012 reboot, 52 episodes), Barbie and the Three Musketeers, and so on. This is one of those very, very rare instances where someone passes notability guidelines without having as oodles of coverage. The problem here is that voice actors very, very rarely gain the amount of coverage that their live action counterparts would and while we're not here to make up the difference, Tozer has had major roles in multiple notable series. It doesn't help that the article only has a portion of her filmography, so I'll try to fix that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this is one of those instances where deleting the article would hurt Wikipedia more than help it. This is kind of why I find VA articles so frustrating: if they were a live action actress then odds are that this article would never have gone to AfD in the first place because they'd have had a ton of coverage. What we need to look at is whether or not the shows she's been in are notable or not, then look at how major her role has been in each series. A look at her roles shows that yes, the shows are by large notable and yes, the roles are mostly major- in some cases going over 50 episodes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with grateful kudos to Tokyogirl79 for her work so far. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, keep per Tokyogirl79. Metamagician3000 (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 11:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnie Catricala

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

Career minor league player who fails WP:MLB/N immediately. Has retired so will not ever satisfy. Only sources are WP:ROUTINE. PROD correctly removed as it was 2nd nomination. GauchoDude (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think he might come close to passing GNG, but doesn't quite get there.--Yankees10 23:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Muboshgu's sources were enough for me.--Yankees10 17:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After reading others responses, I'm pretty neutral at this point.--Yankees10 16:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'll look at this one again. Certainly not as strong a case as Mitch Haniger had, might be a weak keep or a delete from me. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep With a little bit more targeted searching, I found some more articles, like this Seattle Times piece on his graduation from Police Academy, and these Honolulu Star-Bulletin pieces[40][41][42], which combined with the existing articles cited, I think puts it over the mark as "significant coverage" over time from multiple publications. Yankees10, let me know if this changes your mind, or if it doesn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's probably enough to change my vote. I think he goes beyond run of the mill so all I needed was a few more sources.--Yankees10 17:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. This guy is an unexceptional ex-baseball player who never played in the Majors. Hawaii sources are of the standard "local boy gets drafted" variety that you get about almost every minor league player.. and the Seattle report is simply a human interest story... these don't rise to the level for me to say this run of the mill ballplayer is worthy of an article. Spanneraol (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Spanneraol's comment above. As I've said many times in these AfDs, if this sort of coverage is enough to pass GNG, then literally every U.S.-born player in Minor League Baseball has enough media coverage to pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. Extremely non-notable minor league career with no appearances in MLB.Mdtemp (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Most minor league players do not get this much coverage, especially covering a multitude of aspects of his career (and retirement). 00:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete - The one-pitch-strikeout material is pretty great, and added to coverage for sure, but it does not make for notability - certainly not WP:NBASEBALL. A mini-bio (as suggested at NBASEBALL) is all we should expect. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per Spanneraol's argument. Fails WP:GNG as a career (now former) minor leaguer who never made it to the Majors, and any news coverage of him is merely on a local level, not of national country-wide importance. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Greenfield (author)

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

This is an autobiography by Psydoc47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). That user is also known as Dr. David Greenfield <psydoc47 at gmail dot com>.

Dr. Greenfield is a US-based clinical psychologist who specializes in treating Internet addiction. You can view his resume elsewhere, in PDF or HTML formats.

It was a mistake for Dr. Greenfield to put an autobiographical article on Wikipedia. But let's consider our options now. We have two choices:

Keep and cleanup.
Delete.

I was unable to tell whether or not Dr. Greenfield meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria in the first place. Does he? If so, we should keep the article and clean it up. (We could trim it down to a stub, to make the job easier.) If not, we should delete the article.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the CV. Fails WP:PROF--almost no peer-reviewed publications. No major awards; no national offices. No evidence of meeting NAUTHOR: almost all the "publications" listed here are mere presentations and mostly local meetings. No evidence of meeting GNG, & no reason to expect any. I might consider deleting this as G11 speedy, advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting the general notability guideline, or any subject specific guidelines.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 13:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per DGG. I note that he's had some presentations and panels at national conferences, but still fails the PROF test. Presenting at national conferences is a bare minimum for academics. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete/speedy delete. I'm going to close this one early as delete because a search shows a very clear lack of notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jermare Harrison

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

Very unotable person that might actually be a autobiography. There were "refs" here all going to Twitter, Tumblr and Youtube (and most of them were invalid even!) Wgolf (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Just another person writing about himself and not understanding he has to be notable to have a page here. Jinkinson talk to me 02:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jinkinson-yeah I considered putting a speedy actually. And we can't have a page for EVERY person on Youtube of course! (Also it is a self promo IMO) Wgolf (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the article's subject fails to meet the requirements of WP:BASIC. Deor (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Clark (consultant)

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

BLP article that does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. The given sources are either not reliable sources or only amount to passing references. Tgeairn (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep published author, secondary sources. Article needs to be expanded, not deleted. It's a stub. Zambelo; talk 01:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a published author is not a reason to keep an article, what matters is whether these publications have been noted. There is no evidence for that here and the references given in the article are either not RS or just in-passing mentions. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is a month old. Existing sources demonstrate notability (he is a representative of FECRIS, for example, and part of the AFF. He has also given testimony as a "cult expert". He is notable as an anti-cult activist. I've added a bunch more references describing him as a cult expert, and more.Zambelo; talk 14:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant published work, or any other indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He is notable as a "cult expert", not as an author. He is mentioned as such in a number of sources. He also belongs to and is notable within, several notable anti-cult organizationsZambelo; talk 23:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and I don't see any evidence for that, either. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the 9+ references? Zambelo; talk 00:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources to satisfy any of our notability guidelines. Non-RS sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reliable secondary sources? Please explain. There are multiple references that establish his notability from notable publications. Zambelo; talk 07:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zambelo, after the AfDs that we have gone through in the past couple of weeks, perhaps you should consider the notion that your idea of reliable secondary source is out of sync with what the rest of the editors here think. I know that you think that "the other side" is ganging up against you, but, first of all: there's only one side (we all want to improve the encyclopedia) and, second, perhaps we really just honestly think that the sourcing is insufficient to show notability. Look at the contribution histories of all editors involved and you'll see that all of them make efforts on many articles to improve them. That they don't do this here may mean they are all biased against you, but Occam's razor (and AGF) suggests that the simpler explanation probably is true. --Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, none of the sources are ever discussed, and none of you want to admit that you were either wrong or premature in proposing the article for deletion. Each time I've added new sources and these have been ignored, and not even touched upon. Proposing an article for deletion without first discussing the issues and allowing me (the only editor interested in looking for sources) time to look for them and correctly format them into the articles is low - how am I expected to find references for multiple articles all nominated simultaneously over a week or two? It isn't feasible, and yet the sources are out there, if you'd care to look - but you don't. Orchestrating deletions like this bypasses due process, and is a pretty crappy thing to do, generally. Zambelo; talk 11:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about sources

Please provide pages and quotation -- from the info provided, it's likely to be a mention.
Please provide pages, and quotation -- from the info provided, it's likely to be a mention.
Mere mention, along with a quote from him
Mention of name
One of the guests on a program
Quote from him. It shows that the NYT called him an expert on cults.
Self-written promotional bio
Mention that he gave a paper at a conference
Multiple mentions a a "known operative"
directory luisting
spoke at a conference
not mentioned
reference to a Chapter he wrote in a collected work. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

# need to look this up again (or you could)

p303
reference for being a 1) cult expert and 2)exit counselor
reference as cult expert
reference as cult expert
reference as expert on cults and certified counselor
It can be attributed, and backed by secondary sources.
He gave a speech at a conference, as a "cult intervention specialist" at an anti-cult conference.
A known operative. Notable. Also reference to the fact that he was a deprogrammer.
Spoke at a summit for the world's largest multinational anti-cult organization, for who he is the United Nations representative in New York.
The reference mentions the “Day of Affirmation and Protest”, an event at which he spoke and testified (see other source
He is a published author in a peer-published book.

Were you expecting a book on the man? What we can see from the sources, is that 1) He is notable for being a "cult expert" 2) Notable for being an exit councelor 3) Recognised by his peers as being a notable expert

Zambelo; talk 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be SUBSTANTIAL coverage in MULTIPLE RELIABLE INDEPENDENT SECONDARY sources. All five of the words in bold are required. I see some, but not much, routine, tangential and/or trivial mentions that fall way short of any of our notability guidelines. As for your three "criteria" listed above, if you make the fish tank small enough, even a guppy will appear large. I see no evidence whatsoever that he is widely recognized as anything at all, never mind an "expert". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing mentions, sometimes even less than that. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability

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

Been trying to figure out if this meet notability or not-now it is a pretty big article. But it also comes across as a advertisement in a way-also it just started less then 3 months ago! So too soon if ever I suppose. Wgolf (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Looks like the guy created a similar article at the same time Institute of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability (ICRS). Wgolf (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-They are notable when you consider that to become an Institute in the UK, they had to obtain permission from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills of the UK Government. Also, to be launched at The City of London Guildhall you would need to be a notable organisation. Finally, consider that whilst there is the suggestion that they 'started less than 3 months ago' the Institute was created by Corporate Responsibility Group which was established in 1987 (when few people knew what Corporate Responsibility meant). Simonjon (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited page to 1) add content to prove notability, 2) remove primary sources, 3) add impartial external sources, 4) remove primary content, 5) add links to valid wiki articles. Simonjon (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simonjon's extensive changes have brought the article to "obvious keep" status: Noyster (talk), 15:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.allmusic.com/artist/alex-elena-mn0000326027/credits. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] ttp://www.news24.com/World/News/Family-that-hosted-US-Ebola-patient-confined-to-home-20141003

[3] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban_%28development%29

[4] ttp://pbi.org.pl/aktualnosci/Blogerzy%20w%20Polsce%202013%20%2818kwi13%29.pdf

[5] ttp://www.kominek.in/2014/01/ranking-najbardziej-wplywowych-blogerow-w-2013-roku/

[6] ttp://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog_Roku

[7] ttp://kanbantool.com/blog/kanbantool-start-up-winner

[8] ttp://steveblank.com/tools-and-blogs-for-entrepreneurs/

[9] ttp://books.google.pl/books?id=EpQlAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT163&dq=%22Kanban+Tool%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NuHQU4XJCfHP4QSD44HgCA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Kanban%20Tool%22&f=false

[10] ttp://books.google.pl/books?id=GbkcAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=%22kanban+tools%22&source=bl&ots=zs3XIyNmyt&sig=C3zdyMv25LU0iIh4Qi3VryDfvn0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uVHBUsW_C-Gs7QbZzoAg&ved=0CHAQ6AEwBzgo#v=snippet&q=%22kanbantool%22&f=false

[11] ttp://collaboration.about.com/od/projectmanagement/tp/7-Kanban-Board-Tools-For-Project-Collaboration.htm

[12] ttp://www.wseas.org/multimedia/journals/information/2013/5709-110.pdf

[13] ttp://studentnet.cs.manchester.ac.uk/resources/library/thesis_abstracts/BkgdReportsMSc11/Rola-LucasD-bkgd-rept.pdf

[14] ttp://200.17.137.109:8081/novobsi/bsi-na-ufrpe-recife/trabalhos-de-conclusao-de-curso/2014.1/Uma%20ferramenta%20para%20calculo%20de%20Metricas%20Lean_Jessica%20Nunes.pdf

[15] ttp://is.muni.cz/th/418144/fi_m/dp_xchekhl.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilaya Nila}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love (Praga Khan song)}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Power (Praga Khan song)}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Power (Praga Khan song)}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Maynard}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soulbizness}}<!--Relisted-->