Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 February	22 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tkaya Green[edit]

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

More or less unreferenced BLP of a singer for whom I was unable to find sources which would demonstrate meeting our notability critieria of WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:MUSICBIO. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - I'm unable to find evidence that this person meets WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gong show 17:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no coverage at all for this individual in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- She appears to have done nothing but participate in a few school and college productions; nothing less than a couple of years ago, so that I suspect that she is no longer active. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 28 February 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 Withdrawn by nom. Peridon (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gerrard[edit]

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

I actually stumbled across this article by accident, when I was looking for the Hannah Montana songwriter by the same name. This article is a completely unsourced, and this person appears to have no public notability. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator; After looking into the situation, it appears that an earlier revision of the article discussed the songwriter, suggesting that the latest revision was perhaps vandalism. My apologies for the confusion, WikiRedactor (talk) 23:43, 21 February 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 Twitch Plays Pokemon. The consensus is abundantly clear that this should be either a delete or a merge. In general, if there's a reasonable merge target, that's preferable to a straight delete, but it's not 100% clear what the right merge target is. As near as I can make out (and I admit I'm at a disadvantage here because of my near total lack of familiarity with the Pokemon universe), what makes sense is:

Merge any appropriate content from here into Twitch Plays Pokemon. Somebody who is a Pokemon expert will need to make the call on what's appropriate.

Move the redirect target of Helix Fossil to point to Twitch Plays Pokemon.

Delete Helix Fossil (Twitch Plays Pokémon). No need to turn that into a redirect since it's not a plausible search term. I assume that if somebody is looking for information on this topic, "helix fossil" is what they would type into a search box.

At least that's my take as an unbiased (and Pokemon-ignorant) observer of the debate.

PS: I really love the comment, WIKIPEDIA WILL NOT CENSOR THE HELIX FOSSIL!. Not policy based, but from the heart, which counts for something.

-- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helix Fossil (Twitch Plays Pokémon)[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Helix Fossil (Twitch Plays Pokémon)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Not suitable for an article on its own, and too specific to be a good redirect Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - all the content here is already in Twitch Plays Pokémon (it seems), and there is no point in having a separate article. Chris857 (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — the adherents of the new Twitch Plays Pokemon religions will have to significantly increase their numbers before they meet the general notability guidelines. For such a new topic, Twitch Plays Pokemon is best left centralized on a single page for the time being.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - (W/ Helix Fossil) Potentially to something on the Pokémon article or the Pokémon Red and Blue article. This doesn't meet notability as a standalone, but it might be as a section --Super Goku V (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Helix Fossil god actually originates from Twitch Plays Pokémon, so it should go to that article. I suppose I should've specified in my comment where I thought it should be redirected.AioftheStorm (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. While the Helix Fossil religion is mentioned in articles, it's done briefly in relation to the game as a whole. ([1], [2]) Most of the articles mention it as an example of the type of chaos and jokes that have come about from the whole experience, so there's really not much to show how it's independently notable of the TpP as a whole. If it does eventually get more coverage and notice, we can always re-create it. Right now it's just too soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about it and a section on the Helix Fossil and the other fossil would probably be a helpful addition to the TpP entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect clearly not notable on its own. JDDJS (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not appropriate for its own article, and too specific for a redirect in my opinion.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 17:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Meets the the criteria for having potential (WP:HASPOT) and since the event is on-going, more information is developing. There is a lot more content that has evolved (pun intended) from the meta of the gameplay which can be included here, fleshing this entry out into a better article. If it cannot exist on its own, merge it into the parent article for Twitch Plays Pokemon. Wkavan02 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — Wkavan02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect. Possible search term and redirects are cheap. The fossil doesn't have dedicated coverage—it's always reported within TPP's scope and not on its own. Build it in the TPP article summary style. There's nothing to merge since the article cites no sources. czar ♔ 00:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar ♔ 00:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to just Helix Fossil, then redirect to Twitch Plays Pokemon. "Helix Fossil" is a searchable term, and some content in this article could be moved to the Twitch page. The current Helix Fossil was created just a few days ago, and only consists of redirects. At the present time, Helix Fossil is more associated with the Twitch event than the pokemon, and the player can get to the pokemon via the Twitch page. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an article on the HF as a whole with a subsection about it within the span of the TpP game would be a good idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Clearly not notable on its own, all the info can be found on Twitch Plays Pokémon. Permafrost46 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article like this might be suitable for Bulbapedia, but as a standalone topic here? No. If there is already a TPP article, this doesn't need to be here at all, not even as a redirect. Blah2 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge Not notable, but some content is unique for this article. Maybe redirect? Srolanh ^See._Say. 16:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Twitch Plays Pokemon. It is not notable enough to have its own page, as it is purely related to Twitch Plays Pokémon and does not interest anyone not already in the fad enough to be more than a Trivia note or section on TPP's Wikipedia and Bulbapedia pages. I would go so far as to say this counts as Wikipedia vandalism made by silly internet meme-obsessed people. As for Helix Fossil being a searchable term, it is simply an element of the Pokémon games, and too specific to redirect to Pokémon Blue, so let Bulbapedia handle it. (I don't really understand why this page is being seriously considered.) 82.155.189.152 (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this page will grow and be its own at some point, I say give it some time before thinking about removing it from Wikipedia. I'm sure as the game goes on the story of the Helix Fossil will grow to be much larger and complex that it will deserve its own page on here. But if you do decide to delete it, I bet fan sites will start popping up about the Helix Fossil, so it won't be all bad. There is a special feeling though I think that most people will get if they see this page on Wikipedia, a story that an entire community created out of a purely chaotic experience. It is amazing how this has grown to what it is right now and I bet it will continue, so I plead that you give it at least until TPP is finished with Pokemon Red, that is when they defeat the Elite Four. If you still believe this page should be removed, then move the info to TPP's page at the least. I think this is relevant to the talk page, but if I am violating the talk page guidelines, then I apologize in advance. Thank you for taking the time to read this, I appreciate this very much. Bilowik (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Bilowik — Preceding unsigned comment added by AioftheStorm (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete, no merge: No indication that this "religion"/meme is notable through coverage in independent reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 04:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—If this meme has cultural significance awhile from now, then we can recreate the article; as of now, though, I don't think it's worth more than a mention on the Twitch Plays Pokémon article. —Will ^(B) 06:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-WIKIPEDIA WILL NOT CENSOR THE HELIX FOSSIL!--173.191.10.205 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 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. Tone 16:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Blades men's lacrosse[edit]

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

Lacrosse teams are rarely notable, university teams even less so. The refs aren't anything - news or university webpages. The women's team is also up for deletion - HERE Szzuk (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Szzuk (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Szzuk (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lacrosse-related deletion discussions. Szzuk (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with a few odd historical exceptions like the Boat Race, university sport in the UK is pretty much non-notable, with no coverage outside the institution, and that would definitely be true for such a minor sport as lacrosse. I doubt many students at the university are even aware that it has a lacrosse team..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in the UK compared with for example the US, university sports teams, with limited exceptions mainly some Oxbridge teams, attract little public interest or media coverage. This team is no exception and doesn't meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Non-notable sports club. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a NN amateur sports club. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 28 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Winter Olympics medals per capita and per GDP[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate notability, and is mostly original research. Smartyllama (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR and trivia at best. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is covered by several mainstream media, therefore it does not meet criteria for WP:OR, so your arguments are not valid. DancingPhilosopher (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this article can be created, then according to this reference that was on this article, why not Gold Medals per capita and per GDP? Why not Medals per how many competitors that was sent by each national team at the Olympics? There could be many possibilities.--Koresdcine (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic has statistics of medals per 10 Olympians (Netherlands a clear winner in front of Belarus and Norway), so this could be included in the article as well. There are many reliable sources which are covering alternative medal tabels; I actually believe there are more reliable sources for this article than for most list articles. Iselilja (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely KEEP". This is a valid and useful statistic and the only ones who want rid of it is those who don't look so good. The rest of the arguments are window dressing.--Achim Hering (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL. Double check. And mate. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is no shortage of rules and regulations on here to couch the window dressing. In the beltway, that's known as spin. Here's a little more trivia for you: CNN's coverage on the Olympics showed the US in a more prominent position than the International Olympic Committee does. Gold is worth more than silver or bronze. So Germany was in the lead for a while. The US were further down the list - but not on CNN! CNN invented its own metric: The number of medals per country, as though a bronze had the same value as gold. By that measure, the US fared much better. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if positions had been reversed and the US had had the most gold but not so many second and third and also-rans, then CNN would have chosen to adopt the IOC's method of national ranking. One lone anchor challenged this: Chris Cuomo. He pointed out that the reason they showed the rankings this way was, in his words "...because it works for us". Then Kate Bolduan chimed in: "No, no, it's by the number of medals"... Of course. USA#1! Unqualified. #1 at absolutely everything? Like soccer? Or modesty, or politeness? High school math and science scores? If you're #1, then that makes everybody else #2 or worse, right? Here's the relevance to this article: The US slides way down the list when you re-shuffle the rankings by population and by GDP. That makes people feel uncomfortable. Also, look who is last. I believe that this is the reason to look for rules and regulations within Wikipedia to delete this and pounce on usefulness - God forbid! We have rules about that! It does not fix the fact that it has been mentioned in the media, which wreaks havoc with other window dressing arguments. I also agree with other contributors to this talk page that funding per athlete is of interest, as is the number of athletes who qualified to go to the Olympics compared to population and GDP and then how did they do? If you don't think funding matters, consider a twenty something adult, who is probably not making much money yet and having to train to beat the best in the world. That takes time and money and the outcome is uncertain. Now, is that athlete having to hold down a gig to support a family or being bankrolled by the state to be able to train all the time? And then once it's all over, what about the gap in that person's career? I suppose it's all the same for hockey players, who make good money in the NHL, but what about the sports that hardly anybody cares about outside of the Olympics? Honestly how many people buy tickets and travel to see national or even world championships in figure skating? How much news coverage and advertising sales during those events compared against well-funded sports with wide appeal like football, hockey, basketball? Or how about the UFC? The fastest growing sport. Try to negotiate a prime time network coverage deal for snowboarding or figure skating - or better yet, a pay per view event! People pay $66 to see a numbered UFC event. Ever see that for figure skating? Not on your Nelly. You bet money matters, ergo the interest for investigative journalists and also enough of the public in the topic. I stand by my argument. Anything other than not wanting one's own country to look worse is window dressing and finding rules and regs to support it whilst ignoring other valid arguments (such as press coverage), as well as frowning on evaluations of motivation and using that against the evaluator, is par for the course--Achim Hering (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a real pretty ~~rant~~ speech. All for nothing though. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely strong delete This is trivia and OR/Syhnthesis per Lugnuts. I would also add this is not notable beyond a personal web log and its pov. There is no such criteria for this in the plympics, heck even the total tally is not officially kept. NO reason whatsoever to give one NZL website such credence.Lihaas (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it is interesting and draws attention especially from small nations that end up on top, but on the other hand, this is trivia. For the same reason, I've recently nominated List of multiple gold medalists ranked by share of won Olympic events. --Tone 15:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons previously given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Summer Olympics Medals Earned Per Capita, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This information actually represents how well a country can exploit its net man-power and resources to win the most medals and as such gives the picture of the most competitive countries. The ranking is completely different from the Medals tally and so gives a very important dimension that cannot be inferred from only the Medals Tally. Why should such important information be considered as trivia?? Even if such information has been deleted from other Olympic games pages, its time that we re-evaluate the importance of such information. When we give the most importance to measures such as Population Density, Percentage and Per capita income while analyzing any set of data, why should this similar data be treated trivial?? Even if it is decided to delete this page,these 2 tables should be included in the medals page Gurumoorthy Poochandhai 22:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and previous consensus. Only one of the keeps give any policy based rationale. Secret ^account 22:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research, useless information, and nationalistic nonsense. During the 2008 Summer Olympics a similar thing was done by people trying to justify some fringe POV view regarding medal counts. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am appalled by how you all are trying to skip the fact this list is sourced by the mainstream media (the NZL website is only cited indirectly via the proper mainstream media citation). I wonder just how long are you going to repeat false accusations of original research despite it? Do you really feel so threatened by smaller nations' relatively higher per-Capita and per-GDP ranks that the emotions diminished your ability to see the mainstream media sources? --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about you avoid the personally targeted arguments and stick to Wikipedia policy? Do I look Russian, Canadian or United Statian to you? Where is my vodka bottle, balalaika, maple syrup and hamburger? Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate repository of information. We've had people stating that we should keep this page because "it is useful". How is it useful? Nobody has explained to me why such information is useful for an encyclopedia, they've merely stated that it's useful. Ever heard of "show, don't tell"? Show me how encyclopedic this page is, because I don't see it.

What's next, "List of countries by burrito manufacturing by GDP"? "List of countries with numbers of cities and towns that start with the letter B"? "List of countries by penis size per capita"? I can assure you that many Australians have huge dicks, and we also have a population of 23 million, isn't that amazing? How is this trivial nonsense worthy of an encyclopedia? Circlejerking over Olympic medals "per capita" is just like circlejerking over national penis size averages, it's stupid nationalistic fanwanking, and is hardly educational. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read why money is a relevant factor in winter sports, despite your idealistic crap on individual success not depending on GDP and the size of a country's "pool of DNA" with a required potential for the top results to select from. Learn some basic statistics and samples and then come talk. Also, may I ask you where did you see me making personally targeted argument? It was a size-of-country targeted and where have you seen me mentioning "usefulness"? Not anywhere. It was somebody else who brought it up, not me. Read again and then stop putting somebody else's words into my mouth. It is not polite. I only stick to the WP rule saying that articles have to be sourced by mainstream media. That is all that is required, being sourced by mainstream media. You want to be funny with your made-up ad hoc lists? Well, you are not. Show me one mainstream media article writing about any of your lists? --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ...the size of a country and how much capital it puts towards 'owning the podium' is a valid topic. It is not OR as it has been covered by many mainstream media. Some countries are not shy about putting serious capital towards swaying the results, either by funding or increasing the number of athletes per sport. HJKeats (talk)

Delete non notable trivia. Also the choice for these 2 is arbitrary. I suggest tables corrected for home advantage, per capita spending on sports, social status associated with sports victory, proportion of national sports being Olympic sports, amount of money earned in historical slave trade, average height, weight of inhabitants, for wintergames latitude and altitude of country (as these measures will say a lot about availability of ice and snow, as well as slopes needed for skiing) - these tables should of course also be provided corrected for warming effects of the Gulfstream. As said before, the possibilities are endless. This is going to a POV fork for what is mainly trivia. Arnoutf (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Olympic medals per capita and per GDP is absolute nonsense. Please let me tell you why:

Per capita & per GDP ≠ effort of a nation.
Per capita & per GDP are both ratings/measurements that involve the whole population of a country.

The GDR, for example, had a population of approx. 16 million - and a GDP certainly lower than that of the USA - yet the Olympic sports program of the GDR probably did receive more funding. Search for talent was "reason of state".

So, the real question is: how much money did a country invest for the advancement and training → of how many athlethes → athlethes competing in the games → divided by medal results. To create such a table is almost impossible and certainly would be original research. --IIIraute (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2014 Winter Olympics medal table [didn't see anyone mention above]. i know there are lots of variables you can compare but gdp and population are pretty standard. Tom B (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, addition to the medal table article was proposed, but consensus there at this moment is not to do so. Also you say it is pretty standard to compare GDP and population implying it is not the case for other variables. Can you support that with a reliable source? Arnoutf (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Tom B (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing the above, per Talk:2014 Winter Olympics medal table#Medals per population, the current community WP:CONSENSUS is to not include GDP/population comparisons within that page. You might even say that 2014 Winter Olympics medals per capita and per GDP was created as a WP:POVFORK following failure to gain consensus at that talk page. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsense. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per previous consensus. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant weak keep. Various reliable sources such as the Guardian newspaper have chosen to report these findings. This superficially appears to be an encyclopedic topic and therefore should be included in Wikipedia. However the sources have failed to describe the limitations of this "statistical" analysis. The main issue is that most countries have no medals or only a few medals each. This means that a small variation in that number creates a large percentage change. The analysts should have undertaken linear regression. However with 62 countries out of 88 getting no medals, the regression line will be almost flat. Thus the correlation of any given factor with the number of medals will be very poor, making the exercise worthless. It would be ideal if a reliable source published this information, but no-one is going to do so because it proves that the exercise is pointless. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There actually ARE econometric, linear regression based models to predict medals see e.g. [4]. I could imagine brief mention of such methods supported by high quality sources might make for a short paragraph on the medal table page (but probably not be enough for a separate article). Arnoutf (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS Dutch newspaper Volkskrant compared different predictions [5] (may require account) and found sports analysts looking at previous performance did not worse than advanced econometric models for these wintergames. Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the blog link. The negative binomial regression described in the paper is beyond my understanding of statistics. However I have a couple of observations. Importantly, the 2004 Summer Olympics on which the paper is based had 201 competing countries, of which 74 won at least one medal—a proportion of 37%. In the 2014 Winter Olympics 30% won at least one medal. Moreover, the smaller number of medals in the 2014 Olympics—295 vs. 927—gives random variations a much greater impact, making statistical significance far less likely. Curiously, the author does not state the magnitude of the effect. The paper finishes with the statement "Another (possible related) topic for further research would account for the large number of zero medals (69 in the sample), perhaps by employing a zero-inflated count data model." This makes me wonder if the analysis ignored all the zero-medal countries. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what they did, most econometrics is beyond me too. If you have a large overrepresentation of zeroes, data distribution assumptions no longer hold. This is often ignored (in which case explained variance makes little sense) or indeed dealt with by deleting the zeroes. Zero-inflated methods are specifically developed to deal with many zeroes in a sample (e.g. by parceling them out in a first analysis and then conditionally on predictions to split off the zeroes predicting the rest of the curve.... or something similar, I really am not on top with the specifics so forgive me if this is completely wrong). Arnoutf (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per previous arguments from IIIraute I personally think that this article is not needed. BrandonWu (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC
Weak Keep, without any great enthusiasm, but it seems notable and reputable outlets are reporting this and as such it's not WP:OR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment WP:OR is only one reason for inclusion, that sources are notable does not make the subject notable per se (many non-notable people have a memorial advertisement published in a notable source on their death). Arnoutf (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With a slightly diminished enthusiasm, as Lankiveil said for himself above, I will ask you a question as politely as possible since I have just realized you are the Arnoutf who welcomed me on my talk page in 2007. Do you really believe that journalistic sources published in notable media should be treated as mere advertisements in this particular case? --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable list, Fails OR. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:38, 2 March 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) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skilled Group[edit]

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

Entirely neutral at this time, AfD made on behalf of Pborobokas per an edit request on the talk page. Their reasoning can be found there. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests the company is notable. Fails WP:CORP. WWGB (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a large company which is regularly covered in the Australian business media. The stories available on the Sydney Morning Herald's website give a flavour of this: [6], and the Australian Financial Review regularly covers the company: [7] Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - large, publicly listed, widely commented on company. There are ample independant sources to write a good article - Peripitus (Talk) 07:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can you please provide examples of these sources? LibStar (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the sources I've provided above? @WWGB: you might want to consider these as well. Regards, Nick-D talk) 11:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Also a member of the S&P/ASX 200 - for more information see their listing on the ASX website: [8] Ltobrien

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that User:Pborobokas appear to have a serious COI on this article (judging from his edits to the article, and comments left on my talkpage), and have subsequently been blocked for personal attacks. Bjelleklang - talk 13:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Skilled is a very small cap stock on the ASX (market cap less than 700 million). The Abbot gov has called an enquiry into the building industry on corruption. Labour hire firms including SKILLED will be called to answer which may reduce their size significantly. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-10/union-officials-accused-of-taking-bribes-from-labour-hire-firm/5248242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by K of the net (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 February 2014‎
- Comment: Size doesn't matter. Also, if we can find a source connecting the linked investigation to Skilled it may actually help show notability. Bjelleklang - talk 20:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The royal commission has not started yet, but the concept of labour hire has also been called into question by senator Eric Abetz. It is mentioned in the above that SKILLED is a large company, they are in fact a very small cap stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K of the net (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The suggestion that the size of the subject of the article may shrink because of an inquiry into the building industry is crystal balling. While an inquiry may shake up the industry, and bring down companies involved in unlawful practices, it is not going to be the end of the labour hire industry. As a major player in the industry, Skilled are likely to be called to give evidence, but as hasn't been mentioned (AFAIK) as one of the of the offending companies, then K of the net's assumptions that Skilled Group may contract are without merit. DCB1927 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not withstanding the article needs significant expansion and appears to have serious issues in particular COI, the discussion on the talk page and this AfD indicate the company is both notable and controversial and that the depth of coverage is likely to increase further given the royal commission. I cannot see any justification for deletion particularly since recreation of deleted articles is rarely without difficulties. I can see potential to improve the article and would consider expanding it myself when I have the time. Dfadden (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article does need expansion, but there is sufficient history and is of a size to warrant its retention. DCB1927 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability, although issues with article text. I should note my keep vote in this case reflects policy, not my own personal inclinations that a labour hire firm really doesn't merit an article. Orderinchaos 17:04, 28 February 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 (G12). MER-C 04:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Noland[edit]

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

Another one like the last one. The heck is going on here? DarthNightmaricus (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I am working on researching current local business owners for my sports marketing class at the University of Kentucky and am just putting together a page about the information I am finding about a prominent local trainer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwaddles (talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about your concerns with this article? I don't see a previous article by this title or created by Jasonwaddles, so I'm not sure what "the last one" is. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as a blatant copyvio from http://nolandfitness.net/staff/. MER-C 04:30, 22 February 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pryce[edit]

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

The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. The article contains references to self-published sources. An article with the same title has previously been deleted. Schwartzenberg (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of sources readily available, unsurprising for the leader of a high profile international company. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CEO of a multi-billion pound private equity firm. I don't know why the previous article bearing this name was deleted but the current article is adequately sourced.Flaming Ferrari (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the previous article was deleted because it was about a non-notable punk rock singer from Florida. I'm guessing these are not the same person. Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's in Who's Who. http://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whoswho/U31566 - also is the son of Terry Pryce. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:39, 24 February 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 Inglourious Basterds#Cast. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shosanna Dreyfus[edit]

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

Non-notable movie character. Any information would essentially be repeating information from the Inglourious Basterds article. Tempaccount040812 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inglourious_Basterds#Cast. At this point in time all of the coverage about the character has been in relation to the movie. There hasn't really been any coverage that focuses on her as a character specifically. She's mentioned a lot since she's one of the main characters, but we don't have coverage in the same way that say, Princess Leia or Katniss Everdeen has. The character might get it in the future, but right now the coverage is limited to mentions in relation to the film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at present. The existing article is just a plot summary with no analysis or background/production information. The main article on the film is quite long so spinning out sub-articles on the characters isn't ridiculous. And it's certainly possible academics, critics, or film historians would discuss Dreyfus as an interesting character. But right now it fails WP:NOTPLOT. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inglourious_Basterds#Cast. Does not receive significant coverage independent of the film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article and Redirect the name to Inglourious_Basterds#Cast. Not noteworthy enough for a stand alone article.Kierzek (talk) 02:55, 25 February 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 February 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 23 February 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Martinez[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Prior AFD withdrawn over bundling issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All his awards are non-scene, he won everything, there are no nominations listed, There is reliable independent sourcing, including biographical content. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:57, 21 February 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 February 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a very big actor in the bizz. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 09:37, 22 February 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. Tone 16:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intranet DASHBOARD[edit]

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

Blatant advertisement for a company which fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Zero hits on Google News, nothing independent or reliable on Google. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references for a company advertisement. Nowhere close to WP:GNG, either. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found one review, now added as a reference to the article, but not enough to demonstrate notability, either as a company or a product. AllyD (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP: PROMO DCB1927 (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:39, 21 February 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. Although mentioned in several sources, the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) requires them to be the subject of reliable coverage, and that coverage cannot be self-published/self-edited; otherwise, they appear to be covered incidentally to a wider story (e.g., a music competition) or incidentally as individuals. As for coverage in a music competition, the musician notability requirements (WP:MUSIC) would require them to place in the competition, not simply be bad enough to be mentioned as being bad—again, only incidentally to a story with wider coverage. Furthermore, WP:MUSIC would require at the very least two albums released under a major label, not one, and simply being signed to a label (as several of the sources cover) is also insufficient to meet MUSIC, as are non-charting, non-rotating singles. slakr^\ talk / 22:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indiggo[edit]

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

There is no WP:notability for the pair, at best this should be split into two articles, one for each sister, although I don't think they meet the standards of notability either. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The twins are notable together only Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mosfetfaser, your arguments here were particularly WP:BIASED and not particularly persuasive. Your statment "The twins are notable together only" is also not particualrly persuasive, would you care to back it up with a proof? CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proof? there are more than enuf wp:rs about the twins to support keep on wiki where the standards for inclusion are pretty low , see wp:gng There is an attitude, call it revenge deletion here , where anon users here seem to hate any editing by real life people attempting to improve their bios and if they catch on to that the wiki users attack and if possible the anon wiki users delete the article altogether. WP:BIASED , I am not biased at all , considering wiki's low standard for inclusion I see enough wp:notability to keep an article about the twins. Mosfetfaser (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of GNG, that's why I !voted to delete below. Can you explain which references you consider to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" please? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mosfetfaser please always assume good faith and show some appreciations on the contributions of other editors. The article does meet the deletion criteria, except that perhaps it can be kept to serve as an offset to the biased Romanian Indiggo wiki article as the sole purpose. Note that the page has been exploited by the twins to promote their publicity for 5 years(!) and several editors have been constantly removing the fake or unsourced info added by the twins - this isn't funny and I bet no contributor would love to do so. If the article had been deleted in the first place, our editors' efforts wouldn't have been wasted on the article. Deleting it now is very late and lots of efforts have already been spent on making it less biased, calling the deletion proposal by the editors "revenge deletion" sounds very offending as least to me. BigCat82 (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but partial deletion: removal of all the unsourced and promos added by the twins and their puppets from the page history. I just did a cleanup on the article as per talk page consensus. I have removed all the unsourced, fake and self-promotional content, and rewritten some to accurately reflect the few reliable sources. Although the twins are relatively unknown to the public and the page receives fewer than 30 view counts per day, keeping this article can prevent future recreation of the same article in promotional language by their suspected sock puppets like what Paul Lewis Smith did before. Also the twins may get more popular in the future. BigCat82 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as and FYI and with no agreement or disagreement with your stament, pages can be WP:SALTed to provent recreation issues. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info. I just found that the Romanian wiki page on Indiggo exists and needless to say the page is flooded with all unsourced promos (the Romanian wikipedia standards are probably different than the English site here). Maintaining a neutral, unbiased and accurate article about the twins here in the English site is not a bad idea. BigCat82 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BigCat, if they meet requirements in the future, then an article can be written in the future. WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information again. I still have a lot to learn here. Now my only reason to keep it is that having our accurate and unbiased English version for readers' reference to offset the Romanian biased version is better than having only the Romanian biased version. Although the twins are so unpopular, we can't exclude the possibility that a few readers genuinely need accurate information about them. If my opinion is invalid as per Wikipedia standards, I will change my vote to Delete and have no further opinion. BigCat82 (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the twins only need to be notable. Not famous. And not notable for being popular -- it is equally significant if they are noted for being unpopular, as with the news articles we have here panning their singing performance, or reflecting Morgan doing that.Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Check the refs carefully - they are either non-RS, or are trivial mentions. I'll happily change my !vote if more appropriate references (in whatever language) can be shown. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. It's admirable to try to counteract other sites' bias, but that doesn't trump the issue of whether the topic is actually notable. Absolutely a good idea (if one is able) to try to fix a poor article on another site, but their criteria for content, tone, or topic-inclusion are not in scope here. DMacks (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – 1) They have entries on discogs and last.fm, so a comprehensive encyclopedia should include them. 2) Their debacle on America's Got Talent got widely reported (Huffington Post, The New York Times, Today (NBC). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't beleive that discogs or last.fm are notable alone per WP:MUSICBIO. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that those two in combination and taken together with more serious sources support arguing in favour of retaining this article. Also, the essay Wikipedia:Suggested sources takes a more positive view of last.fm. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That essay looks pretty questionable. Last.FM definitely does not meet the criteria for identifying reliable sources: artist bios are user-editable, and there is an artist profile page for any text string in the "artist" tag of a track played by a user with the Last.FM plugin running. There is absolutely no vetting. — Gwalla | Talk 23:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Michael Bednarek, and RS coverage that meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've fully protected the article as it's currently an edit war site. No inference on the merits of the current version, nor on this AfD. Ged UK 13:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt The references either fail the "Significant coverage" or the "Reliable" part of the GNG. There are sources that would work for mentioning them in another article, but nothing that demonstrates notability for a stand-alone article. Salting it is necessary due to the continued socking/meating and promotion by the Indiggo girls "and/or their fans". Ian.thomson (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Only coverage is trivial, others not reliable. mikeman67 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article as it was didn't reflect much of the RS coverage that is out there. And some of the media coverage is difficult to parse -- you have to deal with different spellings of the various names, and check the .ro references (which I've barely done), which are many (one has to separate the RSs from the non-RSs there). But they do seem to satisfy GNG to me.

In addition, they have multiple elements of what we look for -- their coverage is not strictly local, it is for a number of different accomplishments (though none by itself is sufficient IMHO), they seem to be one of the better musical acts from Romania, they have released music on the major SONY record label, they are signed to a major label with a roster of performers who are notable, they have performed music for a work of media that is notable.

Again -- each by itself is short of meeting the secondary criteria (though of course all they have to do is meet GNG), but to me all together are sufficient ... even had they not met GNG. Basically, the whole purpose of our notability rules is met -- these aren't garage band nobodies, who the media does not know. But singers who have appeared on a Kanye West album, been produced by SONY, and are signed to a major label, with the other indicia of notability to boot.Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 4 March 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 Vote for the Worst. Tone 16:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Della Terza[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable on his own; only notability was directly associated with his "Vote for the Worst" website, which is long since defunct. B.Rossow · talk 17:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vote for the Worst. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on wed-site he founded.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although I found one source with minimal biographical content it only tells us his high school and residence. I can't find anything else.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, I think there is enough for its own article available, but it can wait until someone devotes the time to write it up. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 24 February 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. Tone 16:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sreekala Sasidharan[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. Her roles are all minor and also there is no corresponding article in Malayalam or Hindi. I searched her name in southern india's largest English newspaper the Hindu and gave 1 hit. LibStar (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her roles are not minor; in fact, she has been the leading actress in several Malayalam soap. Here is an article about her which appeared in the Hindu. Another one about her marriage. Salih (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in The Hindu and Times of India that she is a leading lady in Malayalam soap operas. Malayalam language references may have more references available.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:56, 17 February 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, Stifle (talk) 16:19, 21 February 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. No consensus over whether it should be redirected slakr^\ talk / 22:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scent Organs[edit]

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

Page does not meet criteria for notability. In particular there are no references suggesting the band recorded or released any music, very little background information at all, and no sources. The information that a member of a notable band had previously been in a non-notable band would usually only be a detail in the text of the notable band's page, in this case Duran Duran. Soulstaticsound (talk) 16:02, 21 February 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 February 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roger Taylor (Duran Duran drummer) as a plausible search term. Coverage may exist in Melody Maker back issues which I don't have access to, but what coverage I'm seeing online consists only of brief mentions and in relation to Taylor. Gong show 18:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth a redirect. Szzuk (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gongshow. Until something more notable needs that particular bit of the main namespace, doesn't seem like a big deal to redirect. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 05:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly 5 years after being tagged, still no sources. Redirect doesn't seem necessary for something so non-notable. mikeman67 (talk) 01:38, 4 March 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 Poser. slakr^\ talk / 03:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poser figures[edit]

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

A user wants to get rid of this page and redirect it to page Poser, claiming "does not meet WP:GNG", but often one man's trivia is another man's important matter, and very many people use Poser, and a history of its major posable characters would be useful to them. This information is not currently in page Poser. Best discuss it here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close to either delete or redirect to Poser. No reliable sources at all. GDallimore (Talk) 16:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many people who have used Poser down the years will provide plenty of reliable sources. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is the concept notable, in the same way that Resource fork or JAR (file format) is notable, it should stay. If it's not, it shouldn't. If a cottage industry has in fact developed,^{[citation needed]} then it is probably notable and reliable, independent references should exist. I'm tempted to !vote as "weak keep, without prejudice for re-nomination after 30 days" to give editors more time to improve this article, then use the lack of improvement after 30 days as evidence of it being less notable than it appears. But I'll just keep this as a "comment" for now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How long do you want to wait, exactly? The article existed for at least 2 years in its current form before I merged it to Poser in 2010. No supporting sources have been added to either article in the last 4 years either. GDallimore (Talk) 20:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now that attention has been drawn to the issue, a month is plenty of time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, or rather, selective merge, to Poser. Books like [9] claim there is a huge mature market for poser figures and looking at sites like Renderosity, HiveWire 3D, Poser World, RuntimeDNA, and YURdigita, I believe it. But I am having a hard time finding reliable sources about the history of these add-ons or commentary on the market. Basic facts that there is a sizable market, program compatibility, etc., are verifiable and per WP:PRESERVE, verifiable material should be preserved where possible rather than deleted. The large table of models is probably WP:SYNTH and should be left out of the merge. The table could be usefully transwikied to the poser figures page at Poserpedia. "Poser figure" is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted, too. --Mark viking (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article was started way back at 05:58, 20 July 2007‎. At 08:59, 18 October 2010‎ it was text-merged into article Poser, but since then someone or people have deleted the list of Poser characters out of article Poser. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 23 February 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Hatter Studios[edit]

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

Organization/company that has no inherent notability. Does not meet WP:COMPANY. No viable references including via search engines such as Google, Yahoo! etc... TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT- I've got no dog in this fight, as my creation of the page was simply preserving plausibly useful info that could not stay on a Dab page. I got something like 38 hits via G-Books that hint at involvement by Brian May & Warren Zevon (but not of George Gershwin himself). Chick Corea seems to have been the last notable owner, and there are several Billboard (magazine) legal notices from '98 (& 1 from '02) warning owners of tapes kept there to come get them, i.e. effectively defunct.
--Jerzy•t 19:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - AFAIK legal notices in Billboard Magazine wouldn't make it notable nor would it help to meet the WP:COMPANY. There needs to be more concrete references that shows they have done something significant and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 11 February 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, Stifle (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced stub. A Google search found nothing but a few messageboard posts. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG comprehensively. JMHamo (talk) 11:42, 1 March 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Raj[edit]

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

Not notable. Has hardly any reliable references about him other than the website about the company he founded. Should be merged with MEdRC article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 6 February 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^(talk) 08:31, 13 February 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, buff bills 7701 16:07, 21 February 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Bellhops[edit]

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

Promotional article for a firm with very borderline notability. The only reliable non-local source is msn news -- the USA Today article was in a special Student section and covered a number of campus service firms. They currently have 9 employees, and "hope" to expand, but the article goes on to quote the number of people they hope to have, and their subsequent plans after the first 10,000, We usually call that "not yet notable"

The detailed emphasis on the lives of the founders and the creation of their company that amounts to 2/3 of the article is typical of promotional articles, especially because hey usually have nothing else to write about.. (It is especially typical of paid promotional writing, but this may just be a good faith copy of that style).

Accepted from AfC a year ago. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 6 February 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^(talk) 08:40, 13 February 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, buff bills 7701 16:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems bigger than DGG suggests, according to sources it has representatives at 115 or 116 universities around the U.S. Those may be contractors, not employees, but that's fine. Seems interesting, too. --do ncr am 19:05, 22 February 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruninho e Davi[edit]

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

not sufficiently notable per WP:BAND and WP:GNG ColonelHenry (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 6 February 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^(talk) 08:40, 13 February 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, buff bills 7701 16:04, 21 February 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. Stifle (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Saviors: Industrial Music To Cure Cancer[edit]

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

An article about an non-notable album WP:NALBUM by a non-notable musician/band WP:BAND with nothing proffered to indicate its worthiness to stay. --ColonelHenry (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article about a notable album, with many notable artists, from a notable label, with notable coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusyWikipedian (talk • contribs) 08:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 February 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^(talk) 08:42, 13 February 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, buff bills 7701 16:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning Hierophant443 (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these are very notable industrial music compilations. This article really does need a tracklisting asap though. -184.153.128.133 (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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Saviors Volume 3: Remission[edit]

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

An article about an non-notable album (WP:NALBUM by a non-notable musician/band WP:BAND with nothing proffered to indicate its worthiness to stay. --ColonelHenry (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of notable artists, notable label BusyWikipedian (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 February 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^(talk) 08:43, 13 February 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, buff bills 7701 16:03, 21 February 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. Stifle (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence[edit]

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

An article about an non-notable album (WP:NALBUM by a non-notable musician/band WP:BAND with nothing proffered to indicate its worthiness to stay. --ColonelHenry (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable release from a notable label with notable coverage BusyWikipedian (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 6 February 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^(talk) 08:43, 13 February 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, buff bills 7701 16:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning. Hierophant443 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Metropolis Records is currently the most commercially successful label in the genre, and many of these artists are notable enough for their own articles, not to mention these compilations are a series, it's not like the label did a one-off release 184.153.128.133 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OAAA OBIE Awards[edit]

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

Advertising puffery for non-notable awards. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Deleted by PROD then silently recreated by the same user who appears to be an Outdoor Advertising Association of America-related WP:SPA. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 5 February 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^(talk) 08:54, 13 February 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, buff bills 7701 16:01, 21 February 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nollywood Reinvented[edit]

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

Article about a website that fails to meet WP:WEB. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the article is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. The tone of the article just needs to be corrected. That's all.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability refers to the subject, not the article. Can you say specifically which criteria of WP:WEB you feel this meets? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 5 February 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^(talk) 09:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel the subject meets the first criteria of WP:WEB. Nollywood reinvented is a well known critic for Nollywood movies and has been featured on quite a number of articles on the media. Examples are: Myne Whitman Writes and Romance Meets Life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Tubers (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 February 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, buff bills 7701 16:00, 21 February 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Howell[edit]

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

This disambiguation page doesn't lead anywhere. It contains four non-notable people, one of whom I made a redirect for (the musician's "article" now redirects to Outlaws (band), and even that is debatable considering his short tenure in the band). This disambiguation page simply isn't useful. Furthermore, none of the other pages can be created as redirects. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:36, 21 February 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 February 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outlaws (band). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of the entries satisfy WP:DABREDLINK and/or WP:DABMENTION. older ≠ wiser 13:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep: the baseball player is likely to get an article, the others meet WP:DABMENTION, it could be of use to either a reader looking for one of these people or an editor about to create an article for one of them. PamD 18:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid page. Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Premature to create a disambiguation page when 3 of the 4 links involved are not actual pages. Perhaps if the other pages are created we can reconsider, but the possibility they might be created isn't sufficient. The entire purpose of a WP:DAB only occurs when "there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." mikeman67 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MOS:DABRL#Red_links. I ran the what links here test on the three red links; two of them pass (and of course the blue link), so the page seems good to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:58, 5 March 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Captivity of Nairs at Seringapatam[edit]

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

Appears to be a POV fork from Persecution of Hindus, but it is OR. Unless a subjugated population are captives? And none of the sources seem to be any good. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article speaks about some events where people of Malabar were captured and tortured, converted, put to death or something like that in a time frame. This article seems to have been independent of the Persecution of Hindus article. The article probably needs a new title but definitely requires a cleanup. Not sure if the title is right unless a majority of the concerned people were Nairs. Also Seringapatam is an archaic misspelling of Srirangapatna.Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree about sources, better sources required. Also the article needs to be rewritten and cleaned, given matter is not relevant. But at one point article seems to claim that the Nairs were captured from Kerala and held prisoners in Seringapatam (Srirangapatna), so they were actual captives, not about subjugated population.Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I politely point out that I could not find any POV. The article has encyclopedic information and may be retained and developed. Majority of sources seem reliable. Rayabhari (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at the sources? I count ~~three~~ eight within seconds from the 1800's. That is the most of the sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering sources which can be called reliable: the general biographers of Tipu at that time such as Kirmani and Punganuri, Kirkpatrick who translated Tipu's letters into English, Moegling who wrote about neighbouring Coorg, Surendranath Sen, a professor of University of Calcutta, wrote about 1857 and the Marathas, Mohibbul Hassan, whose protege was Irfan Habib, wrote about Tipu Sultan,etc., One reliable source is still missing, K. M. Panikkar's.Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are reliable, not a one of them. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can none of the 20 sources are reliable. For instance, Mohibbul Hassan was educated in Lucknow and London, wrote to the Cambridge university journals, taught at Aligarh Muslim University, Jamia Islamia University, New Delhi and Calcutta University. His book is one of the most reliable sources on Tipu Sultan. K M Panikkar (historian, scholar, diplomat) studied history at Oxford, taught at Aligarh Muslim University, Calcutta University and served as a diplomat and he is a learned source on matter pertaining to Kerala's history. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 19:53, 18 February 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, Stifle (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is significant enough I don't think it warrants AFD, however a note that the article needs cleanup is to be added. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a factual article based on multiple sources. I suspect that the nom's view is IDONOTLIKEIT but that is not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 23 February 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 / 23:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Gestetner[edit]

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

Lack of notability. In addition, the article is written as a promotion, and sources violate WP:SYN KDLarsen (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too Soon. The sources are mostly by the subject. Those not are a few quotes in a few sources in NY. I admit not to doing much research in Hebrew in case any might exist there. The problem here is determining how notable this subject is within the NY Jewish community and the amount of sourcing and a previous version of the article which had peacock makes me think the case is overstated. However willing to listen to more informed opinion. -- GreenC 21:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: from the few Yiddish-language sources available online, none of which are Reliable (blogs, forums, etc.), Gestetner seems to be a well-known activist in the Hasidic community of New York. (Theoretically, I should have heard of him before, but I have not.) However, the more reliable Ultra-Orthodox newspapers that may have sufficient coverage of him (Der Yid, Der Blatt, and Di Tzeitung in Yiddish and Hamodia and possibly Yated in English) are completely unavailable online—so unless another Wikipedian incorporates said hypothetical write-ups as sources to the article, we will have nothing but my vague guesses to go by. (@Yoninah: I recall that you often use Hamodia as a source (more so than any other editor, in any case); would you possibly be able to help here?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Any thoughts on how far this Jewish Press article (?) goes toward notability? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hasirpad, that article does a lot to prove Gestetner's notability, as do dozens of other sources in the article. He clearly meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Shalom11111 (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Shalom11111: We need multiple instances of in-depth coverage; even if more articles covering Gestetner's intent to run for congress were found, I think it would fall short per WP:BLP1E. As for the other sources (numbering per this revision), here is a detailed analysis:

1: absolutely unreliable;

2, 3, 4: articles by Gestetner (he is a journalist, after all)

5 (p. 3) dedicates one and a half short paragraphs to him

6, 7: passing mentions (7's detailed-sounding title is from Gestetner's website)

8: dead link, but from context is probably a passing mention

9, 10, 11: irrelevant to Gestetner (and misleading)

12: an advertorial at best, signed by "Friends of Yossi"

13: is a media kit by a magazine for which he writes

14 (an index of articles rather than one article, but never mind): not reliable enough to be the basis of a subject's notability

15: not a source in any sense

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Hasirpad did a much more detailed analysis of the sources than I did. I only spot checked a couple. The most obvious one to look at was the Daily News (#6 in his list). Gestetner is mentioned in passing, below the break, so totally meaningless as far as establishing notability goes. I also looked at #7, which is, as Hasirpad points out, on Gestetner's own web site! Digging a little deeper on that one, it quotes an article from www.politico.com. Again, he's only mentioned in passing. His name doesn't show up until the third paragraph, and then only as somebody who's quoted commenting on the main subject. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or BIO. GNG requires multiple, non trivial mentions in reliable sources. It appears that #5 in Gestetner's list meets this by my own loose standards, but that is only one, and therefore clearly not "multiple." 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:27, 5 March 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 / 03:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Beta Phi[edit]

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

Non-notable fraternity - single branch in a single university, founded in 2008. A very similar AfD occurred for another fraternity several years ago and the result was delete. Though it isn't binding WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities has has this working draft of notability standards, which I believe this fails. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although Omega Theta Alpha was deleted, Zeta Chi Phi is an article still standing and does not list any references and it is a sorority with one chapter as well. Cannot base deletion on Omega Theta Alpha.It has 2 chapters, one graduate and one undergraduate. The undergraduate chapter has students from York university and the University of Ottawa. The graduate chapter contains women from cities in Quebec such as Montreal, Gatineau, Hull and the Ontario sisters are all from the GTA representing the University of Ottawa, York University and l'Université de Montréal . This year Sigma plans to expand their undergraduate chapter and recruit from universities in the GTA and in Montreal. It will soon gain notoriety once it finalizes its expansion. It just recently became incorporated as well.--Rbruc022 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is that similar arguments to that AfD apply here also. Furthermore, other stuff exists is not a valid argument. BethNaught (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, have failed to find any references in reliable sources, and it appears the only Google hits are posts on social networks by the group itself. Also concur that it fails said draft policy. BethNaught (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that I am the creator and that it is also the first predominantly black sorority in Canada. The other predominantly black greek lettered organizations can mainly be found in the US, with the exception of omega psi phi at Carleton university, Sigma Beta Phi is the first of it's kind to create chapters in Canada.Rbruc022 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: above user, Rbruc022, is article creator. BethNaught (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Being the first predominantly Black sorority in Canada is notable. The article is well written too. However, wikipedia frowns on bare URL's for your sources, so you'll need to fix that. Let me know if you need help. It may also help establish notability if you have published sources. So far the sources are not optimal. You might contact a local paper and ask if they'd like to do a story on your efforts to create the first predominantly Black sorority in Canada. :-) Bali88 (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing on behalf of the Sorority, so I am still missing some information, I believe that they have more reliable sources that I might not know about. I will contact the Graduate Chapter's executive board to see if they can come in and add what they need to. Thank you for the help, I am still learning how to work this whole thing out, I will try to add more sources this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbruc022 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. I see a list of officers, and nothing in which the world at large has an interest. To quote from the article, "This page seeks to expand information on the Sorority as well as Greek Life in Canada." So the page is also a WP:OR problem. I looked at one of the supposed references, the Pepsi refresh project, and not only is it a press release, the word "Sigma" does not appear on the page. There are also WP:Copyvio concerns, for example, the sentence "The primary goal is to promote female empowerment and successes both individually and collectively." is sourced to [10], which has the exact same sentence except that the first word is "Our". The use of the pronoun "our" indicates that the weebly source is not independent, and also indicates COI in our article. Unscintillating (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the original link (www.refresheverything.ca/thestepupprogram) which would have listed the sorority as well as details to the program had expired due to the fact the contest have been over for some time now. I listed an alternate link which gave detail to the Pepsi Refresh Challenge.Rbruc022 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio would be easy enough to fix and the coi is not by itself a fatal flaw. The problem IMO is that there is no material in which the world at large has an interest. Like a previous editor mentioned, you might try to get your regional newspaper to write an article. But even if they do, it is only one source. WP:Alternative outlets has some more options. Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if the article does get deleted, don't get discouraged. Stick it in your sandbox. Work on finding resources. Work on polishing the article. And try again later when there are a couple more chapters. :-)Bali88 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rbruc022: It's good that you are working to improve the article and such, but one thing to keep in mind is that it would be inappropriate to delete the article because it's not good, unless it were really not good (i.e. no salvagable material), per the policy on surmountable problems. This is being considered for deletion primarily because it does not seem like it is notable. Just because it's not notable now (as I believe it is not) doesn't mean it won't be notable in the future, and as Unscintillating said, just because it isn't published on Wikipedia doesn't mean it can't be published anywhere. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - if a good source can be found (and added) that documents this was the first minority sosority in Canada. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious COI from article creator and primary editor, and the entire piece reads like a marketing flyer. No independent, reliable, sources. I looked at the references. They are all either internal, or local. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 8 March 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. Delete as hoax DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buy short[edit]

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

While feeling that this is a hoax, as the names referred to only Google to here and similar, there are apparent mentions in connection with Elon Musk. I think that discussion is needed on this rather than CSD. Peridon (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Ironically, "short buy" seems to be a legitimate poker term. However, I see no evidence for a real financial term, and the highly individualistic name of its supposed creator only hits here. I'm convinced it's a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete such a transaction would be a "sham financial transaction" as described, and has no sources other than itself. Collect (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, blatant hoax. There are no actual references. "A purchase of the exact shares that are already held by the individual" is nonsense. There are no listings for a lawyer named "Blayre Hiern". There are no listings for a financial firm named "B. B. Levin & Co.". "Sir Marcus Peterson" was last noticed, alongside Henry Ward Beecher, giving a campaign speech for the rather late James A. Garfield. "Iron Eagle Spreads" is not a recognized financial concept. The supposed Elon Musk tweet is not documented by any non-wikibased sources, reliable or unreliable. The "Nigerian Options Exchange" does not appear to exist, except perhaps in emails from an exiled member of the Nigerian royal family who is willing to pay generously for help in recovering his family's fortune. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a joke article. Selling short is selling stock that you don't own, so of course buying short would be buying stock you do own :-) But they aren't logical opposites, and buying short as described in the article makes no financial sense. As per Hullabaloo, the rest of the article is filled in with hoax material. --Mark viking (talk) 17:55, 21 February 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. Tone 16:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monika, Princess of Hanover[edit]

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

This article is about a person who is only notable for having been married to the pretender to a throne that has not existed since 1866. The article has been tagged as needing citations for three years. I don't think this meets WP:BASIC and should be deleted.Smeat75 (talk) ~~21:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)~~ 13:06, 21 February 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 February 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no plausible claim to independant notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wives of claimaints to non-extant titles are not default notable, and nothing else she did makes her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of sufficient notability (being the stepmother of the living proof that monarchies are an inherently bad idea isn't enough, nor is owning an art collection). —Kusma (t·c) 20:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 23 February 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 / 03:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Génesis Carmona[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This looks to be a case of WP:BLP1E - a beautiful woman getting killed in such a horrible way gets a little bit of media attention, nothing long-lasting and nothing which demonstrates notability. Her beauty pagenat title looks to be a very small, local one and does not imply notability either. At the most we could redirect to 2014 Venezuelan protests. Giant Snowman 12:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A point of order. WP:BLP1E clearly states: The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared to this policy (WP:BLP1E). Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. This is not a BLP (the person is dead), and it is not a biography of a low-profile individual, as it is a beauty pageant winner, and because of that, articles about her death are plentiful and sustained, not to omit, worldwide. Basically, the nomination fails on technicalities, not just one, but two. --Mareklug ^talk 14:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E Issue As per above WP:BLP1E only applies to living people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. A sad story, but a clear case of BLP1E. I think it should be included in 2014 Venezuelan protests in a reduced form, with a redirect left. SmartSE (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The nominator's -- and the implied PROD-installing Wikipedian's -- characterization of the media coverage -- subdued by the similar but bloodier events in Kiev, Ukraine, where many more people have been killed -- is unfair. The death of this beauty queen, regional pageant winner but for an entire state of the country, not for a locality, as the nominator is trying to misportray -- made big impact on people worldwide, as evidenced by the RSes used for the article. Our own coverage of 2014 Venezuelan protests is very inadequate in terms of media. The BLP in question at least includes very evocative photographs from Valencia (her home town, a city of some 2 million people, third largest in Venezuela) are not matched by anything we have been able to gather for Wikimedia Commons. Even the es.wikipedia.org images used locally are completely lame and portray an earlier, peaceful time of gatherings. She may have not been notable technically, but she was assassinated, picked out for the killing, to the back of the head. It is that aspect of it that is troubling above and beyond her human tragedy. Not only that, the news was reported in a sustained way in Spain and Mexico, both on the day of the shooting, and on the day of her dying. I purposefully used sources from Mexico, Spain, and Poland, to support that point -- that her killing is notable. --Mareklug ^talk 13:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This notable article already has Spanish and Portuguese interwiki. Whereas the Spanish article has issues, the Portuguese one does not. True, it is but a stub, but it is sourced by a the leading daily from Brazil's southern Paraná state, the part of Brazil which is about as far away from Venezuela as it is possible to be: it borders on Paraguay and Argentina. This is yet another brick in the wall of shoring up the case that the article on our wiki is notable, and the death is notable, as in being of world-wide interest in the top media, and that we should not be getting rid of it. Please look at all of Wikipedia, and ask yourselves: am I being local-centric by dissing the importance of this event, this BLP, its sourcing, its linked media, its interwiki links? --Mareklug ^talk 13:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the fact that there are (currently) articles about this woman on other language Wikipedia is wholly irrelevant. A minor event getting minor coverage around the world, in this age of globalisation, also means nothing. You need to show this woman (and not her death) has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Giant Snowman 13:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's your spin on it. All I have to document is that her death was an assassination, and that it is part of the terror in Venezuela which is being underreported in the USA/UK. Her career as Miss Turismo de Carabobo is irrelevant, and your fixing on THAT notability misses the point. --Mareklug ^talk 13:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was an assassination. Here you go. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gazetadopovo.com.br%2Fmundo%2Fconteudo.phtml%3Ftl%3D1%26id%3D1448569%26tit%3DMorre-miss-baleada-durante-protestos-na-Venezuela Now I ask for a snowball or WP:common sense-based close with Speedy keep. --Mareklug ^talk 13:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it eligible for speedy keep? And again, how is her death/assiaination notable? Giant Snowman 13:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I serve to edify and educate, so let me spell it out for you: In total, nine young men were injured in the protest that Genesis Carmona participated.. Motorcyclists arrive, shoot one person mortally in the back of the head, no one else shot dead. What do you think it means? To me is speaks volumes: Targetted killing by the goons supporting president Nicolas Maduro, deliberately arranged to happen in order to terrorize people, common people, and have them stay home. You might not know that beauty pageant queening is a major national sport in Venezuela, as is cosmetic surgery to augment just about everything, starting with breasts, ending on feet. And, it would make sense that a regional beauty queen would be far more expendable for this aim, than some national one, present or a has-been, resident in the capital Caracas. The goons are anxious to suppress the protests, spreading now to other cities, and what better way to trigger the imaginations of the common man and woman, than assassinate a regional beauty pageant winner? And why speedy keep? Because, you, my dear fellow friend, in your cluenessness followed the letter of the policy of notability without regard to the meaning of the events that transpired. It is not the fact that she was a regional beauty queen that matters here, obviously. See the forest, not the trees. --Mareklug ^talk 14:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for a speedy keep decision are: "1 The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." You know, you could have read it yourself. But linking without understanding seems to be a pervasive malady of Wikipedia debates, and even administrators don't seem to be immune to it. We live in sad times. --Mareklug ^talk 14:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how is this eligible for a speedy keep? Has the nominator withdrawn the nominaton? No. Has the nominator failed to advance an argument for deletion? No. Giant Snowman 19:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the nominator has advanced a deletion argument you disagree with, does not mean they have failed to advance a deletion argument. Reyk _YO! 22:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more or less per nom. The theory of notability expressed here is pretty much the poster's invention/imagination, unsupported by reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A point of order. WP:BLP1E clearly states: The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared to this policy (WP:BLP1E). Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. This is not a BLP (the person is dead), and it is not a biography of a low-profile individual, as it is a beauty pageant winner, and because of that, articles about her death are plentiful and sustained, not to omit, worldwide. Basically, the nomination fails on technicalities, not just one, but two. --Mareklug ^talk 14:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and the obvious BLP violations in the rant a few paragraphs previous should be oversighted. Unverified conspiracy theories as to why she was targeted do not confer notability. Stalwart111 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 1E (I prodded this originally), but I'll take a merge per SmartSE since her name gets plenty of hits, but one can't possibly argue that she's like Mohamed Bouazizi, for instance. I'm not going to address all of Mareklug's points (some of them are prima facie ridiculous), but the wikilawyering doesn't work if one doesn't know the wikilaw well: of course 1E applies--see WP:BDP--since the person is very recently deceased. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are very complacent; how come it is so hard to get off the butt and dereference our own RSes. Here is one: http://www.infobae.com/2014/02/19/1544839-murio-la-reina-belleza-atacada-las-milicias-chavistas -- go to the image with yellow ovals all over it. Caption, translated: "He who shot Génesis Carmona, the Venezuelan beauty queen who was shot in the head". For those without net access, it is a sharp telephoto shot of a street scene, and the yellow oval contain, among others, a goon with two hands on a pistol, in classical aiming position. She was ASSASSINATED, the picture proves it; it was not a random fly-by bullet. And you want this "rant" oversighted, Mr. Very Thorough Wikipedian? --17:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
More info from RSes "Por qué las milicias chavistas atacaron a la reina de belleza [trans. "Why did the (Chavismo|chávista) militias attack the beauty Queen"]". infobae (in Spanish). Buenos Aires, Argentina. 19 February 2014. Retrieved 21 February 2014. --Mareklug ^talk 18:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We now have a zh.wikipedia.org (Mandarin Chinese) interwiki. Our article continues to be the only one that is not a stub but on its way to GA nom. --Mareklug ^talk 18:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your optimism is infectious, Mareklug. Good luck with the GA review. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would help if the nom would just ...drop it. Thank you for your kind words of support. I hope to infect with severe morbidity. :) --Mareklug ^talk 19:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - What do you mean, "drop it"? I am not the one annoyingly pushing a point - that's you. You'll note that the only editor who, so far, believes in the article notability is...you! Many others agree with me to delete and/or merge. Giant Snowman 19:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's wait and see how this story develops. Our discussion on this page is only twelve hours old. I see coverage in the New York Times and the Daily Mail. This item is similar to the Mónica Spear story. - GroveGuy (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One, "let's wait" violates WP:CRYSTAL. Two, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Giant Snowman 22:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three, Spear is independently notable (independent of her death), since she was a telenovela actress for seven years and a Miss Venezuala--not an aspiring model with a regional non-notable pageant title. This subject is notable only for her death. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Carmona had been Miss Venezuela, she would probably be assured notability. She was not Miss Venezuela, she held a regional beauty title in Venezeula, that is not the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This bear repeating, since it is not sinking it: It is irrelevant how notable a beauty queen she was.. The New York Times writes in plain English in the RS piece we are now sourcing, and even the deletionist pile-on crowd and nominator no doubt will have no problem assimilating: Genesis Carmona, who was crowned Miss Tourism 2013 from her home state, Carabobo, quickly became the face of the growing student protest movement as news of her death on Wednesday spread across social media networks. That means that her death has galvanized people, not only in Venezuela, not only in the State of Carababo (where she was plenty important to THEM), not only in the 2-million soul Valencia (where is is even more important to the local population's self-image). In sum, relent already. Deleting this article would be pointless, stupid, and uncalled for. Go, delete some self-promo by a Third World one-person web design house. --Mareklug ^talk 00:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mr. PROD, I love how the circumstances have come full circle, biting you in the proverbial wikiass: You write above: but one can't possibly argue that she's like Mohamed Bouazizi. That is your oblivious, patent WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL, not to omit, a dismal and complete failure to exhibit WP:COMMON, never mind exhibit a scintilla of knowledge of Venezuela (I am a member of the Venezuela WikiProject). The New York Times, a Reliable Source that closes this sub-discussion in my favor has stated already that she damn is. --Mareklug ^talk 00:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BLP1E can not apply here as the person is no longer living but seeing that I can see no notability outside of her death it fails per one event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles. Did you disregard or did you consider the New York Times characterization of the aftermath of her death around the world? --Mareklug ^talk 02:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the word "may" in that sentence, note how it does not say "even relatively minor participants require their own articles". So far there has been no evidence that her death had any major impact on the protests or their goals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the article could be renamed to Killing of Génesis Carmona. If John and Lorena Bobbitt can have their own article then surely this case deserve its own article too. Americans might find Bobbitt's penis intrinsically notable just because it was cut in the old U.S. of A. and who cares about what goes on in Venezuela. The rest of the world will probably think that this killing is a more important thing. Contact Basemetal here 10:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:WAX, every article is different when it comes to an AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has become a major figure in Venezuelan politics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per beauty pageant and politics.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Death of Génesis Carmona. Not notable before her death, but I think we're kidding ourselves if we try to claim her death hasn't received significant coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable just for having been shot by a policeman in a roiling, unstable third world country if she isn't notable in her own right. Quis separabit? 01:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You are seeing the massive amount of coverage, halfway around the world, in some of the most recognized publications around, right? Press censorship in Indonesia was terrible, but that doesn't make Murder of Udin any less notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but, with all due respect to Carmona, whose death saddened me when I read about it (she was young enough to be my daughter), Udin was a journalist, which probably makes his killing more notable. If Carmona had been an activist before the incident then there might be a more compelling reason for including her death as an article as Death of Génesis Carmona. Quis separabit? 01:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what were John and Lorena Bobbitt before Lorena cut off John's penis? But those two are notable enough to have their own article right? But Génesis Carmona isnt? Contact Basemetal here 02:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am striking my comment but not voting keep because I am not sure. I understand your points, but aren't we going down a possibly slippery slope? Is anyone/everyone who gets shot or killed in a political demonstration, rally, or even more serious, an uprising, necessarily notable per se if they have any kind of public profile (like Carmona's beauty pageant)? I don't want an article for every IRA or white supremacist or Islamist terrorist, for example. Respectfully, Quis separabit? 02:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait--Crisco et al., the woman's been dead for three days and she's already a symbol of something? Of course there's worldwide coverage: beauty queen gets killed. Basemetal, I think there's a considerable difference between the case of the Bobbitts and this, if only because there was a court case, and an aftermath including reality TV and t-shirts. So, WP:NOTNEWS, for now. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've said that she was a symbol of something. I just said that she has received a considerable amount of coverage, more so than the x thousand (million?) people who died on the same day she did. Whether or not this death ultimately becomes a symbol of something depends on how people treat it in the (near?) future. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Ok how about Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. There was no court case. She was killed in a demonstration she wasn't even taking part in. How is that case different? Contact Basemetal here 06:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Quis separabit?: I understand your point of the slippery slope. But the slippery slope argument cuts both ways. There is also the slippery slope of deletions. A slippery slope that goes from perfectly legitimate deletions to unwarranted ones as in this case. Let me think about this for a bit and try and see if I can come up with a reasonable argument how we deal with slippery slopes. Regarding Drmies's argument: He doesn't like my comparison with the Bobbitts because there was a court case. What does the court case have to do with this? They're in WP because of the news coverage. I remember about the time the Bobbitt affair occurred Time mentioned something 10 cases of wives cutting their husband's penis and there were court cases in all those cases and they're not in WP. Why? Because there was no coverage. It is the coverage that determines if something is or not notable. Has got nothing to do with whether there was a court case or not. But if you're really sensitive to the court case argument: look then at the case of the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan where there was no court case. See how analogous it is with this case. Contact Basemetal here 06:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily I'm not swayed by arguments that because something exists, other similar articles "deserve" their place in Wikipedia. But Basemetal's is a particularly good example of how to argue such a point without the normal "x exists so y should too". That all said, I see this case as very different to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. In that case, she was watching the protests, wasn't actively involved in them but was shot by a militia member and the shooting of an innocent bystander became the story. The counter-claim by the government fed that story. So you actually have government representatives officially commenting on her death which, I think, confers a higher level of notability. In this instance, the subject was participating in the protests, they turned violent and she was killed. Let us not all be swayed by the completely unverified claims that this was a political assassination. That claim is not at all supported by reliable sources. If it were, this would be a different story. Yes, there's coverage but it is almost entirely about her "one event" (her death, unfortunately). Even the supporters of this article have urged us to ignore her status as a beauty contest participant. That would be sensible anyway, even if we were talking about a significant award, but winning a regional "miss tourism" award? I'm just not seeing it. Stalwart111 07:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Basemetal: I really never heard of Neda Agha-Soltan or knew about an article about her. I perused it briefly to reply. It seems to have a lot of info but if the Carmona article is deleted and you believe this is unequal or unfair then you can always AFD the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan article. I am not really a deletionist by nature although I do sometimes get on my high horse about something that sets me off. Carmona doesn't set me off in that I wouldn't have initiated the AFD. It's a tragedy that a young woman was killed by negligent shooting or worse, although I would be inclined to doubt that her death was "a political assassination", as she was not an influential person or any sort of politician, and most likely was not well known even in Venezuela outside her own province.

If there is/were any credible evidence she was targeted, then that would make her death ~~instantly~~ notable though, IMO. In the event the Carmona article is, in fact, deleted, we can always redirect a good chunk of it to the 2014 Venezuelan protests article as suggested at the top of this AFD by Giant Snowman (the AFD initiator), which may end up a "no consensus", but I'm not sure about that.

Respectfully, Quis separabit? 07:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Quis separabit?: I'm sorry I didn't make my point clear. I do not think it would be appropriate to delete the article about the Neda Agha-Soltan case. I think it is a very good think Wikipedia has an article about that case (and neither do I think the article about the Bobbitts' case should be deleted, again it is appropriate that there be a Wikipedia article dealing with that case). My point had nothing to do with "deserts". No one deserves to have an article in Wikipedia. The main focus should be the readers of Wikipedia. Would theylegitimately like, are they legitimately entitled to find a place where verifiable and reliable information can be had on either case. In my opinion without any doubt. And I think the same goes for Génesis Carmona. I think from time to time deletionists lose track of the big picture, which is the purpose of Wikipedia, and get lost in intricate arguments about notability and news worthiness. As everyone works through in their own mind the merits of Génesis Carmona being kept or not, they should ask themselves: are readers going to be satisfied with a passing mention in 2014 Venezuelan protests or is it legitimate on their part to want to find more about this person in Wikipedia, given the coverage that this person's death has received. A Génesis Carmona article, in whatever shape and whatever you call it, is the natural place they would turn to and the appropriate place where new information can be added.Contact Basemetal here 10:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Basemetal: Thanks for clarifying. Just to point out again - I do not consider myself "a deletionist" and have no instinct towards deleting as opposed to keeping contested articles. It all depends upon the circumstances of each individual case, as it should do. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And my commentary was based on your comment, "If John and Lorena Bobbitt can have their own article then surely this case deserve its own article too." Thus the issue of "deserves". But as I said, I understand where you're coming from - I think we just disagree on the application of WP:BLP1E. Stalwart111 22:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A difference is that the Bobbitt article demonstrates that they have enduring coverage: this academic journal article article from 1996 is cited as #27 (although from an aggregator with which I'm not familiar), and citations #8-10 appear to be from a book. Note that WP:BLP1E generally prohibits articles on someone who generally remains a low-profile individual — when you're the subject of dead-tree publications years after the event, you're not remaining a low-profile individual. Nobody's presented evidence that Carmona has previously gotten extended coverage in this kind of sources, and WP:BALL says that we can't assume that she will. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: You got me there :) I guess I was using "deserves" as an atheist may use "God" in a sentence, as a kind of shorthand :) I meant if the merits of the case are the same in this and that case. You notice in the case of G. C. I was talking of the case "deserving" an article not the person, although it seems I wasn't so careful with the Bobbitts. So, good catch! Contact Basemetal here 11:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Oh God! This is getting more and more Byzantine by the day. The Bobbitt incident occurred in 1993 and the article was created in 2003. Of course Wikipedia itself was only created in 2001. Is the Bobbitt case now to be treated as WP jurisprudence? Is the "Bobbitt interval" of ten years now necessary or just sufficient to warrant the creation of an article if the case still has notoriety? In the case of Neda Agha-Soltan the article was created (surprise!) the very same year as the incident. Apparently in that case everyone did think they had a crystal ball! Why did they? Maybe they should have waited until 2019 to create the article (if anyone by that time still remembered the case and it was deemed important). So I guess you are proposing that the creation of the G. C. article be delayed by 10 years. See ya all in 2024. This is the problem with arguing by analogy. Yet there's really no other methodology than the argument by analogy in this sort of debate. It's not like we have an axiomatic or a "natural law" type system in WP to let us decide such cases. (Maybe that will come some day :) If you present two cases and try to argue that on the merits of the similarities between them they should be treated the same, there's bound to be someone who, like you, will focus precisely on the differences to argue that the analogy is invalid. Without of course explaining why the differences are the important thing. But then again you didn't explain why the differences were not important. We can go on this merry way for some time. Maybe that'll keep us all busy till 2024 :) Contact Basemetal here 11:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Singular unfortunate event that has been duplicated many times in Venezuela. This death wasn't about her politics, it was just happenstance that is covered because she is pretty.Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is no more substantial than mine, that she was targeted for assassination, in order to terrorize the average Joe and Jane in Valencia, and make people stay at home as opposed to get out and demonstrate. Classic terror. Look at the picture caught by an Argentinean photo-reporter with a sharp telephoto lens (the one with 4 yellow ovals drawn all over it), already referenced in the article. The assassin is standing there in a classic shooting position, hands extended in front of him, golding a gun, aiming deliberately at her. And no one else was killed during that demonstration. --Mareklug ^talk 14:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The assassin is standing there in a classic shooting position, hands extended in front of him, golding a gun, aiming deliberately at her. And no one else was killed during that demonstration" -- if you can source and prove all that then you may have a colorable claim that Carmona was assassinated and not just the victim of a stray bullet. Quis separabit? 15:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these bits of info are already sourced in the article, albeit in non-English sources. Use translate.google.com, and zero in on the Argentinian sources (for the picture and for the no one else killed, 9 wounded). --Mareklug^talk 16:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the opinions of Dennis Brown and you are not equally substantial. You're making a statement that is hard to prove, and can't be proven from a picture. You'd have to prove not just that some shooter deliberately aimed at her, but that she was deliberately targeted because of who she was--not just someone in a demonstration, but someone whose death would be deemed of political advantage. I don't see how you could ever prove that from a couple of yellow circles. "Random killing" doesn't mean "random shot". Drmies (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, well stated. I didn't mean to fudge on the requirements out of an unduly sympathetic case of a young woman killed so horribly, but at the same time I was/am leery and far from an expert about what constitutes an assassination. Quis separabit? 04:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: So what? In my opinion WP should not distinguish between kinds of notoriety. People gain notoriety for all different kinds of reasons. If in this case her looks played a part in her case gaining notoriety that's how the real world works. Similarly WP should not distinguish between "good" notoriety and "bad" notoriety. Very bad people have articles about them in WP and, if their cases have gained notoriety, then that's how it should be. So the important question is in my opinion: does or doesn't this case have notoriety? Are there reliable sources? Are the statements made in the article verifiable? Let's focus on the quality of the sources. Contact Basemetal here 11:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of solid coverage from independent sources — all we have are primary sources, with nothing being chronologically independent of the incident in question. We need secondary sources for notability: books, major websites, academic journals, news sources that address the incident as a past event rather than as news. Whether or not she were targeted for assassination is completely irrelevant to the absence of secondary sources: these are not the kinds of sources that Britannica would use. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. Here is a secondary source, analysis from Argentina, that was already in the article when you wrote the above: http://www.infobae.com/2014/02/19/1544802-por-que-las-milicias-chavistas-atacaron-la-reina-belleza. The New York Times piece also present, also qualifies, as it contains analysis and the call of Valencia's mayor for an investigation of who was behind the murder: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/venezuelan-beauty-queen-is-among-protesters-killed/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Basically, deleting this article instead of working on it is bad Wikipedia behavior. --Mareklug ^talk 04:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Here is a secondary source, NPR analysis, which has not been added to the article yet: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/20/280019048/in-venezuela-another-beauty-queens-death-adds-to-anger --Mareklug ^talk 05:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Infobae and NPR are not chronologically independent: they're written at the time of the incident, and part of the initial reaction to the incident, rather than being examinations of the situation based on the initial reactions. This is the kind of thing that gets studied in secondary sources, not in tertiary; for example, someone writing a Ph.D. dissertation in the future will examine this kind of publication in order to examine reactions at the time, not in order to get an impression of the theory or as part of a literature review. I cannot comment on the Times thing, since my browser won't open it. The point is that these are not stable sources viewing the incident from afar, and encyclopedias are written on stable sources viewing incidents from afar. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What seems to be a moving target are the criteria people use for this or that article. I thought the sources needed to be reliable and the topic have notoriety. Now it seems Nyttend has discovered they also have to be "stable sources viewing the incident from afar". He discovered they have to be sources that "someone writing a Ph.D. dissertation in the future will examine [...] in order to get an impression of the theory or as part of a literature review". So here you have another problem of this type of debate: people seeming to make up the rules as they go along to justify a conclusion they've already reached long before. That tends to make such debates pointless. Please take a look at other articles on a similar kind of topic and decide for yourself if the sources used to establish the notoriety of the topic and the viability of the article indeed always are "stable sources viewing the incident from afar" and sources that "someone writing a Ph.D. disseration in the future will examine etc." Note I'm open to the examination of the rules I've taken into account and whether I've discovered them progressively under the carpet at the appropriate moment in order to basically keep justifying my first position. Contact Basemetal here 13:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: New section World reaction and reaction in Venezuela is meant to accrue the growing reaction to and the growing influence of Génesis Carmona's assassination. Please expand with new material, as events and their reporting by Reliable Sources warrant. I believe President of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro has addressed her death in a speech, but that info is not in the article. Stuff like that. --Mareklug ^talk 14:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A comment to the closing admin → If the decision is to merge and redirect, I will copy the article at that time to my user space and keep working on RSing it. If the decision is to delete, please userify Génesis Carmona in my user space, User:Mareklug, per usual custom, as I wrote nearly 100% of it and the notability of this BLP/death event is a moving target, with RSes coming on line, and possibly new revelations and media. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 04:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfying it is going to be problematic as BLP is a concern here. You can't just copy it, via the license, and merging/userfying into two different places is problematic as well. I count 19 comments here by you, perhaps WP:BLUDGEON would be worth reading. I think you may be a bit too invested in the outcome of the article. Passion is one thing, obsession is another. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject is dead, therefore BLP rules do not apply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are mistaken. BLP covers recently deceased people the same as living. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~Where does it say that? I have always thought that BLP stood for Biographies of Living People. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)~~ Answered my own question, but I do not see how this person's death is questionable as it has been confirmed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You need to read the policy, the WP:BDP section in particular. After death, BLP covers them from 6 months to 2 years, depending on the death. The purpose is to protect the survivors. The policy is quite clear on this, and this is a textbook example of why the policy exists. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This person was only killed a week ago. Trying to claim that we can know there is not long-term coverage is bizarre. What we do know is they have been well covered in multiple countries. I can see arguments for making the article explicitly on Carmona's death, but I do not think there is a good argument to entirely destroy the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Death of Génesis Carmona She is now the face of the 2014 Venezuelan protests similar to the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan.--Theparties (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Theparties: I have reverted your page move; there is no community consensus yet, we need to wait until after the AFD has finished. Giant Snowman 12:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Smartse, WP:BLP1E, WP:TOOSOON. I've made a cleanup pass through the article and, honestly, what's here could be collapsed into a single paragraph without losing any important information. We can revist if coverage of the story continues to develop, or if the investigation and/or trial generates significant coverage. Second choice would be delete. Garamond Lethet c 23:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Crisco. I can't see the BLP1E issue. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC) FWIW, I heard of her death on NPR. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 7 March 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. Tone 16:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Diablo[edit]

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

Article appears to be a self-promotional vehicle for a person who has not received any actual significant awards (nominations do not count) and who has not received the attention necessary to qualify for notability (i.e., substantive coverage in multiple reputable published sources with widespread readership). A long list of remix CDs does not by itself confer notability. From WP:MUSIC: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." KDS4444^Talk 11:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is a notable artist. I take exception to saying nominations don't count. They absolutely do. Nominations means they were Top 5 best of a category for a full year. Bless you how is this not being notable baffles me. I also disagree that no amount of artistic work is relevant if not substantiated by independent non-trivial works focussing on their work. The body of work an artist does certainly does have relevance if done on a number of years and with notable artists as is the case with Don Diablo. He has worked with Divided, The Beatkidz, Bizzey, Example, Dragonette, Sidney Samson, Diplo, Tinie Tempah, Mika, The Chemical Brothers, Cassius, Gorillaz, Public Enemy, Iggy Pop. This artist has charting hits in his own right - forget working with others. Check for instance FORTEEN charting hit singles in the official Dutch "Single Top 100" as well as a charting album for him. Refer to: http://www.dutchcharts.nl/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Don+Diablo Not only that. These stretch from 2004 to 2013 meaning it wasn't just one successful year, but continuous presence over a stretch of 9 years hit after hit after hit. Besides Netherlands, he charted briefly in Belgium as well. He also appears in similar fashion in Dutch Top 40 which I have documented after this note. I invite colleagues to check the discography section and peak positions and take them in consideration prior to commenting here. I find this move was highly unmerited. Hope this gets resolved soonest with a swift and deserved keep decision for a very notable artist. werldwayd (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a notable artist and you want to delete it? Oh my gosh, can't believe it. Strong keep, not only a scene name, he's also a remixer. check that out, dudes :) --Saviour1981 (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to easily pass WP:GNG. Extensive list of credits, we've kept far less notable stuff than this. Montanabw^(talk) 02:49, 24 February 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. On the numbers alone, this would easily be a "no consensus," but Andrew and Edison in particular made reasonable arguments for the topic's notability that were not substantively rebutted in the discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of mnemonics for the cranial nerves[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic Lesion (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Review of the previous attempt to delete this article in 2011 did not give a satisfactory consensus, and the arguments to keep were not based upon guidelines such as WP:MEDMOS#Wikipedia is not a medical primary resource:[reply]

“

Most mnemonics and rules of thumb exist primarily to help medical students pass tests. Just give the information without the artificial and distracting structure of memory aids.

”

Wikipedia is not a medical textbook and it is not aimed at students but a general audience. A general audience has no use for this page. Agree 100% with Mikael Häggström who suggeted move to Wikiversity, where this kind of content is most welcome. Lesion (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki: per the above. I have come across this article before and wondered what it was doing here. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mnemonic is itself notable - see Introduction to Psychology, for example. The worst case would be merger into list of medical mnemonics which has already been proposed. Andrew (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the keep arguments in the previous discussion were acceptable grounds to keep this article. I contribute to both Wikiproject medicine and the Wikiversity school of medicine. This kind of topic belongs on Wikiversity, it is not encyclopedic. It does not matter if medical textbooks can be found to support certain mnemonics, the topic is not notable for a general encyclopedic audience. Lesion (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Keep result last time was acceptable because it was accepted. Your interest in Wikiversity is irrelevant here as that project is a separate one which is mostly moribund. And setting up explicitly to teach medicine in a pseudo-university sounds quite problematic. Anyway, what you fail to recognise is that the mnemonic is more than just a detail in the study of cranial nerves. It is now a famous archetype or example and so is referenced not just in textbooks teaching medicine, but also in numerous books about memory, mnemonics and psychology. There are even explicit studies of its effectiveness such as The Olympian struggle to remember the cranial nerves: Mnemonics and student success or Cranial Nerve Clock: Part I. A Declarative Memory Paradigm. The topic therefore has ample notability and this makes it a suitable topic for us. Andrew (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense. No-one apart from medical students would be in the slightest interested in this topic. We have a guideline specifically for medical articles which tells us not to write about mnemonics, let alone pages of unreferenced ones. Delete all unreferenced content and move to Wikiversity. Lesion (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The guideline to which you refer is telling us not to incorporate mnemonics within the main text of articles about the corresponding facts. That is an argument for not merging this material with an article such as cranial nerves. It does not tell use what to do when the mnemonics themselves are the main topic of the page. Mnemonics are suitable because they take on a life of their own and so become notable topics in their own right such as Roy G. Biv and Fleming's right-hand rule. Andrew (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mnemonics for the cranial nerves do not rank alongside Fleming's right hand rule, just as mnemonics for bones in the wrist, branches of arteries, nerves, and any of the other dozens and dozens of mnemonics a medical student might encounter. This topic does not belong in an encyclopedia. Lesion (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anything useful should be merged into cranial nerves JFW | T@lk 19:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger and deletion are opposites - see WP:MAD. Andrew (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. I see no indication that the mnemonics are notable as science or culture; the article appears to serve only as an instructional aid for anatomy students. If there are reliable sources establishing the notability of these mnemonics, I am prepared to be voted down. I don't see evidence of that in the article, though. Cnilep (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep I think there is some cultural value in some of the mnemonics. I would see the list being kept, but thoroughly purged so that we only keep mnemonics that are sourced in the literature. While amusing for example the Snape ones are not encyclopedic material and should definitely be moved to Wikiversity where they can do good. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, then delete Study aids should be sent to Wikiversity. The Wikiversity page can be linked at Cranial nerve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, stripping any unsourced content. LT910001 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed delete-- in response to the bot notification on his talk page, Mikael Häggström stated: "I don't contest this deletion proposal. A short section at Cranial_nerves#Mnemonic_devices is enough as it is. 09:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)" Lesion (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. The reason why I split the content from cranial nerves to this new article, as I recall, was because I thought the content was too bad for the cranial nerves article. Perhaps I should have proposed deletion of it already then. Yet, it seems a good idea to transwiki the content, presumably to Wikiversity. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm surprised it hasn't been blown out of the water by WP:MEDRS due to a blog being the second reference! In seriousness, this is a silly, trivial list, that will simply invite more and more unencyclopedic additions. Does anyone really need three different accounts of what happens after "Old Oprah Occasionally Trots Triumphantly About, Farting Velveeta Globs..."? --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced MEDRS would apply here. Lesion (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well established part of medical folklore, as much so as any other folklore. MEDRES has nothing whatever to do with it--the actual names are the science, and they are of course perfectly documented. The abbreviations are not science, but just famous leaning devices, DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 20 February 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} 11:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a guide and many of these are poorly sourced. Also see WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. This is an excessive list, and notability is questionable at best. If the content can go somewhere else, great, but it's simply not appropriate for a list article here. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 16:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Definitely edit out unreferenced, made-up-in-class-one-day bits of ribald humor. References exist to verify that some are famous mnemonics, studied not just by medical students but by nurses, dentists, students of psychology and even attorneys, "Textbook of basic nursing:" "On Old Olympus Towering Top A Finn And German View Some Hops" is said to be a "common mnemonic", "Understanding anatomy and physiology:" "On Old Olympus Towering Top A Friendly Viking Grew Vines And Hops" is called "a common one", "Oral Diagnosis, Oral Medicine, and Treatment Planning" (for dentists) says "On old Olympus towering top a Finn and German viewed at hops" "has helped generations of medical, dental and nursing students remember the cranial nerves..." , "Anatomy for attorneys:" "On old Olympus' towering tops a Finn and German viewed some hops." , "Psychology: modules for active learning:" "On Old Olympus Towering Top A Famous Vocal German Viewed Some Hops" The last discusses it as a notable mnemonic per se, rather than presenting it as a tool to be used for learning ther subject matter of the course. (The "Olympus" mnemonics may have changed with the times as nerves were renamed). Edison (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. The writing style section of MEDMOS discourages emphasis on mnemonics as being unencyclopedic. Some representative "safe for work" (ie non-NSFW) examples are currently included in the parent page, and that should satisfy any genuine encyclopedic need (WP:TEXTBOOK). On the other hand, the present page appears trivial and looks largely like a student prank rather than a genuinely encyclopedic source of information. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Quick Nelson[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO, not a notable actor, has not received significant attention in reliable independent sources. Being included in some movie databases is not sufficient. Fram (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As best I can tell he has bounced between minor and maybe major roles in minor films. I can't tell enough of his works to say if he has had any major roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My Google-fu found nothing specifically about him except his IMDb page. Nothing that might be about him met WP:RS. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:49, 1 March 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 TRIZ. Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal final result[edit]

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

Not a notable concept aprock (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to TRIZ which is the only place it has some significance. Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a notable topic as there's at least one book on the topic: The Ideal Result. Andrew (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb says that "The Ideal Final Result introduces the TRIZ Inventive Problem Solving Process", so it's a book on the latter, not the former. Mangoe (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book focusses on this particular aspect of TRIZ. This title seems better for our purpose in that it is comparatively plain English. Per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, we should prefer it to the obscure acronym TRIZ which is based upon Russian rather than English: teoriya resheniya izobretatelskikh zadatch. Perhaps we should merge the TRIZ stuff over here and generalise the topic as others are likely to have had similar ideas - idealised solutions, getting it right first time, &c. Andrew (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book does not "focus on this particular aspect of TRIZ," but discusses the whole TRIZ process. As to WP:RECOGNIZABLE, the TRIZ article may need a name change, but that's a different process. -- 101.119.14.127 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TRIZ, since this is an integral subtopic of that, and is not notable on its own. -- 101.119.14.127 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 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. Tone 16:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parakeet (programming language)[edit]

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

Google search returns nothing, no sources, article long abandoned, the language probably doesn't exist Lordgilman (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced article about a programming language that is either non-existent or not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence provided or found that this attained any notability. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Parakeet is a real language, as evidenced by [11] and [12]. But it never caught on to a larger user base outside those developing the Parrot virtual machine. I was unable to find any independent sources, so this seems to fail WP:GNG. --Mark viking (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N for Parrot is marginal at best, as there's a distinct lack of secondary sourcing outside of parrot themselves. For Parakeet, even parrot.org doesn't seem to cover it. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:04, 23 February 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. Further work is needed, but consensus is not to delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death and funeral of Ariel Sharon[edit]

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

The article's contents were ejected from the Sharon biography. It has grown, and I feel it is excessively newsy, recentist and filled with too many sound bites. It's also clearly eulogistic, as most of those commenting never saw eye-to-eye with him or thought he was a pain in the backside, yet are caught in the dilemma of not speaking ill of the dead. I see nothing of value here – it can all by replaced with fewer words and less blind rhetoric. I tried redirecting it to the bio, but was reverted. I would propose deleting all the sound bites and reinstating a redirect to the bio containing a prior version of the reactions section that I feel is infinitely more encyclopaedic. Ohc ^¡digame! 03:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has also been included in the list of politics-related deletion discussions and list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- User:Ohconfucius 04:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but edit liberally. I think this is a legitimate content WP:SPLIT for the sake of readability given the "primary" article is 76k+ and the split is 16k+. Combined they would still be less than 100k but the event probably meets the criteria of WP:EVENT on its own anyway. That said, Ohconfucius is right in that it could do with some pruning and commentary from leaders of Colombia, Fiji, Mexico and Sweden probably isn't necessary. Stick to the countries with notable relationships with Israel. Shame this couldn't be resolved with an RFC or talk page discussion but there's a good chance this would be considered subject to relevant ARBCOM sanctions so bringing it here might very well prove a wise move. Stalwart111 04:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: The text I proposed replacing this article with, which includes all the notable and excludes all the rhetoric, is less than 400 words long and weighs 5.5kB, so a merger need not bloat the article, especially as you see the opportunity/need to radically prune. And you are right, I didn't want to start another edit war under Arbcom's noses and get bludgeoned to death by Robocop. Can we not try merging it as suggested, and then split it off again when the volume/quality warrants it? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, personally I'd be comfortable with your proposed text/language but that's probably a decision for a wider consensus-seeking discussion. I still think a separate article is justified, though, even if it is significantly shorter. I suspect it will eventually grow into a worthwhile article like those listed below. I think its worth shepherding its progress in that direction from the start, rather than merging it back into the primary article only to split it out later anyway. Your attitude with regard to sanctions is sensible. Stalwart111 04:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Probably, the nominator is unaware about similar aspects. It is not necessary that the particular subject should be WP:RECENT. Nominate maybe unaware of Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher , Death and state funeral of Hugo Chávez, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying we shouldn't have a so-entitled article, just that the actual valuable (read "encyclopaedic) content can be easily absorbed in the biography. Neither of those articles contains as much recentist and policy-violating cruft as this one. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ariel Sharon. I see there's about a dozen or so similar pages of world leaders' death and funeral. Their existence doesn't prove the need for this page, however. I don't see what is particularly notable or special about the funeral, in that it cannot be included on the main page. Most of this information, however, is trivial and doesn't need to be included, as mentioned above. Also, Sharon's page isn't excessively long. mikeman67 (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe merge - I am sure the Queen's funeral will get an article as well and this is a notable person who died. Antonio Ricky Martin (aca) 08:21, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
Keep, maybe merge Ariel Sharon is long-term historically important person. Hafspajen (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Surprisingly, I'm going to side with Bladesmulti on this one. Personally I think that having articles on state funerals at all is unencyclopedic, but I am confident that if I were to put any of the others up for deletion, it would be WP:SNOWing heavily. Therefore I must conclude that we've established a guideline that state funerals are intrinsically notable. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs source improvement State funerals of truly notable/legendary, persons, like Sharon (or for example, Nelson Mandela, nothing else than notability level implied here!) are independent hostorical events that warrants their own pages. However, the very first reference, on when Sharon died (ref 1) does NOT mention Ariel Sharon's death at all, but describes his medical condition, since he was still alive at article publication date. Such amateurish reference fallacies must be removed from this article!!!Arildnordby (talk) 17:06, 26 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Palmer (artist)[edit]

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

Speedy deletion declined, reason unknown. An artist that has had several solo shows in London, but I can't see how that makes her notable enough for a Wikipedia profile. Cited to a gallery bio and a bio on her employer's website, I can't see any independent reliable coverage about her or her work. Fails WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: probably right that this wasn't a speedy deletion, but I am not finding anything that would meet the WP:ARTIST criteria. I've added the subject's own site as an EL to the article, and there again, the biography indicates an exhibiting artist going about her business but not with sufficient note at this point in her career. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 23 February 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. Tone 16:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Phillips[edit]

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

Article is written in a very unencyclopedic manner, full of puffery and exposition. I suspect WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIO as several brand new WP:SPS are involved. Basically a WP:COATRACK for the lawyers various cases, and almost nothing about the actual BLP, because all of the sources just quote him in passing and are actually about the case, not the person. Since none of the sources are actually about this person, WP:N Gaijin42 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article reeks of WP:AUTOBIO. It's telling that none of the cases mentioned (as of a couple days ago) in his article had their own Wikipedia articles and were only mentioned in the John Phillips article, as if he were the key figure in those cases. There are many references in the article, but few of them actually mention the subject. Fnordware (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This individual is not notable. The article sounds more like an advertisement for his business. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This guy may be notable, more as a publicity hound than a lawyer, but this article is flagrantly promotional and seems to based based on his advertising websites rather than written independently. Nothing salvageable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per cogent arguments by Fnordware and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Thanks for saving me a lot of unnecessary typing.) Quis separabit? 01:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete -- While much of the article does seem to be advertisement-like, he is fairly notable. This article could be improved to a true BLP with the addition of relevant information, and the removal of the not-so-relevant information. I believe that editing the page would be a more favorable choice over deletion. Greedo8 (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious as to what factors make you think that Phillips is indeed notable? Maybe if you could expand on that, here? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I wanted to say how surprised I am by the fact that everyone is assuming he wrote it. It's entirely possible it was written by a fan of is, or someone who read about him online and thought he needed a page. I don't think we need to jump to conclusions simply because it appears to be read as an advertisement. Regarding his notability, it says he's an analyst for HLN/CNN, he's supposedely appeared on multiple tv programs, and was a lawyer in the Dunn shooting case (which did receive extreme media attention). I'm not saying he's the most important guy out there, but I've seen much less significant figures have wikipedia articles. Greedo8 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd offer the following. I think it's pretty clear that either he wrote it, or someone wrote it on his behalf (e.g., a "hired hand"). Whereas celebrities, politicians, singers – even serial killers – often have "fans" and "groupies", run-of-the-mill personal injury attorneys typically do not. Also, I think we need to keep separate the issues of "popular" versus "notable". These are just my thoughts. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The key for me is that I have seen no third-party reliable sources that are actually about him. Of the 41 references in the article, there are many non-RS links that are about him, like his own web page or bar association web pages. Of the references that are RS, many don't mention him at all, and those that do just include a quote of his in passing. As Pondo said, we don't want to make a page for every person who has ever appeared on television or been mentioned in the news.

I'd also like to point out that in the Dunn shooting case Phillips was actually the lawyer during the civil suit, which was settled out of court and received far less coverage. The lawyers in the high-profile criminal case appropriately do not have their own articles, except for Angela Corey, the State Attorney, who has plenty of RSs to justify one. Philips always appears alongside Jordan Davis' parents—should they have their own articles as well? Anything approaching an RS for John Phillips is related to that case, so WP:BLP1E applies. Fnordware (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just going to make the same distinction between the civil and criminal cases. The latter received all the media attention. The former, being settled out of court, did not even come to a trial. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A useful comparison might be Benjamin Crump the family/civil attorney for the Martin case. In comparison to this subject, Crump has a small, but verifiable list of reliable sources directly discussing him, and his history with civil rights cases. There are no similar sources for Phillips. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer look at WP:BLP1E, I agree with Fnordware, especially the part of "likely to remain a low-profile individual." I have changed my stance accordingly. Although I'm still not sure there's enough evidence to claim it was created by a "hired hand", I concede it's entirely possible. Greedo8 (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Greedo8. It's a pleasure having people like you in the Wikipedia community.

It does appear that Mr. Phillips has been using various methods, including his Wikipedia article, attempting to become more high-profile. The Jordan Davis trial seems to be the latest instrument. If he ultimately succeeds and becomes notable, then I'll look forward to a new article being started for him based on reliable sources. Fnordware (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I think we should not include in the Wikipedia every lawyer who has appeared on television or represented cases that have appeared in the media. If so, we have to allow for the inclusion of hundreds and hundreds of lawyers, who, ultimately, are as irrelevant as this that concerns us here. This guy has created an extensive article here on Wikipedia about himself, and that might make you think that he is someone important. Make no mistake. He has no merit to have on his own Wikipedia article. No other articles link to this one, except the article about Michael Dunn (created few days ago) and another article in which he is mistaken for another person of the same name from decades ago (1934). Pondo (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 February 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. Tone 16:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa_Anderson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marisa Anderson

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

Not notable, sources are all peers, edits done by Marisa Anderson herself, mostly an advertisement for her services. JCipriani (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There may be a weak case for notability here given the things alleged about her in the article. Unfortunately the sources appear to be compromised by personal and or professional association with the subject. Both WP:RS and WP:V seem to be a fail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Take away the self-promotional and fringe-sourced stuff; there's nothing left that meets WP:GNG. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an advertisement. Can not find any reliable references. Goblin Face (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak~~ delete I deleted most of the WP:NOAD violating material. There isn't that much left. She's had enough media exposure that if non-fringe WP:RS could be found to confirm her notability I might support a keep however if it can't be improved beyond where it is I'd say delete. After noting that the Holzer reference was actually an advertising directory and that the information contending her having an ongoing professional relationship was impossible on account of him being 5 years dead I found one reliable source (which I included) to support that the Grave's End "haunting" spoke toward a notable event - however weakly. However WP:BLP1E applies now as this event is all that is left. So while it speaks to notability it isn't sufficient on its own. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only remaining section "Work with Hans Holzer" suggests that Anderson is not independently notable as per WP:INHERITED. Kooky2 (talk) 11:03, 27 February 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 The Little Flames. Black Kite (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M.G. Gregory[edit]

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

Unverified claims for this musician, most is about the non-notable unsuccessful band The Little Flames of which he was a part. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. No evidence of notability. Sources are trivial and fail WP:RS. The article appears to be the work of a WP:SPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Little Flames, that is his primary 'claim to fame' - not independently notable. Giant Snowman 20:25, 23 February 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jed Blaugrund[edit]

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

He might be a very competent co-executive producer but that typically yields very little coverage, especially for lesser known movies. The result is that he doesn't fit the criteria outlined in our guideline. Pichpich (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article rings the WP:N bell. Sources are trivial and or fail WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines....William 18:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not received the needed coverage, and production staff does not have the notability in depth that actors do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 28 February 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 Afghanistan–Turkey relations. Tone 16:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Afghanistan, Ankara[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. this article is unreferenced and contains no claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 6 February 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, Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 13 February 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, Northern Antarctica (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect ~~Delete~~ - yeah, the relationship between those two countries might be notable but this building is not. Stalwart111 02:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Afghanistan–Turkey relations. An embassy under normal circumstances would have a strong claim to notability. But this appears to be little more than a diplomatic mission and RS sources don't appear to exist, at least in English. That and there is really nothing here to justify a stand alone article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good solution. Stalwart111 04:06, 21 February 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) 08:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K narender[edit]

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

Based on provided references, KP Naveen (or KP Navveen) can be verified to have written music for two albums. This, in itself, is insufficient to meet the criteria for inclusion. Also, there is no indication whatsoever that K Narender and KP Naveen are the same person, nor is there any verification that either person had anything to do with the rest of the movies listed here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 14 February 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, Northern Antarctica (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is a pretty clear case of WP:SPAM by a WP:SPA who has twice attempted to remove the AfD notice from the article. No evidence of notability and the sources are just promotion sites and videos. This probably should have been a G-11 CSD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article text is a close paraphrase (he for I) of the subject's own Wix webpage. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 21 February 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 King_Kong#Other_appearances. Tone 16:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong (Toho)[edit]

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

I wanted to WP:D-R this one, but since there have been several other times editors have tried this and been reverted, I thought it best to bring this a discussion. The inherent problem here is the idea that this King Kong is different from the "real" one, which seems like kaiju WP:FANPOV and others who have tried redirecting this article. The Toho creature is really just an interpretation of the King Kong character, not a separate one that happens to have the same name and a similar appearance. There are plenty of interpretations of King Kong that don't merit their own articles.

I would like to redirect this article to King Kong#King Kong (Toho). I don't think it's necessary to merge, but this will preserve the page history if anyone is interested in performing one. --BDD (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does an alternative version of a fictional character merit its own page? For instance, there is an entry for alternative versions of Spiderman, so by what criteria does this not merit its own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwhoopie17 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 18 February 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, Northern Antarctica (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. The redirect target seems to cover the material quite adequately. There is the additional problem with the sources. All of the sources cited (a couple are dead links) fail WP:RS. So any new materail fails WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as duplicate material that can be covered in other articles. Even though it could be expanded and RS sources exist (primarily about the films), the text is almost the same as that in King Kong, and additional material could equally go in King Kong vs. Godzilla, which already has a very detailed production section. Lead characters who've been in 1 or 2 films don't automatically get a separate article, unless there's too much material for the article on the film/series. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect For the same reasons stated above. Its simply regurgitated text from the King Kong (Toho) section from the King Kong article. There is a redundancy to having that text copied into a separate page.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:57, 21 February 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. Most of the Keep comments are of the ITSNOTABLE variety Black Kite (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knox Presbyterian Church (Harrison Township, Michigan)[edit]

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

Not a notable church - fails WP:GNG. It's not a megachurch, and all I can find from Google Books is a picture and caption from a book about the township. St Anselm (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found a few references and added them to the article. I'd be happier with one more good article from the Detroit Free Press, but the online archives don't cover 1922 to 1999. All in all, the article is free of promotion, reliably sourced, useful to readers who want to know more about this topic, and the references are sufficient to establish wp:notability. Unscintillating (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expanded the history of the church and added more links.Cryx88 talk
Delete totally WP:MILL local church, sourced almost entirely to the church's own website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:09, 20 February 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, Northern Antarctica (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing here that really rings the Notability bell. Sources mostly fail RS and the coverage it has garnered is pretty much of the routine sort that one would expect of any church. I saw no claim to any great historical or architectural significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only possible source of significant notability here is the the congregation's shift in stages to the PCA, but I'm not finding a lot of interest in that save in one or two conservative Presbie outlets and blogs. I gather that in doing so it is simply one of many. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It contains useful information of this historic congregation.

Please see WP:USEFUL. St Anselm (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every church is notable in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.250.251 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how that would be nice, but that would render our notability guideline virtually meaningless. St Anselm (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete After looking at this article for a while, I think this isn't really notable. This really doesn't follow Wikipedia:IMPORTANCE BrandonWu (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read this article and I think that is very interesting that a former EPC congregation joined the PCA due to theological differences. I think a picture should be added to the article. Thanks JoeyBear|talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.43.220.204 (talk) 12:11, 2 March 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.