Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 May	27 May >

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. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Rita Holland

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

Article whose only substantive or properly sourced claim of notability is her candidacies in two provincial election campaigns (one she lost and one's still pending) — which, as always, is not a claim of notability that passes WP:POLITICIAN. She'll be entitled to an article if she wins the seat at the end of the election campaign, but is not entitled to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think she has to win a race to be included, but the coverage of her would have to be much more substantial, and do more than recite her campaign platform. So, all we can write at this point, would be a campaign brochure. --Rob (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I certainly didn't say that a person can never qualify for an article without winning an election first — it's not an easy thing to do, but it can happen. Just look at John Turmel. But a person doesn't get an automatic presumption of notability, or an automatic entitlement to keep an article on the basis of one or two sources confirming their existence, until they win election to a notable office — if that hasn't happened, then you're exactly right that the article has to cite a much more substantial array of sources and make a much more substantive claim of notability than the mere fact of being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rob. Steam5 (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 03:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnava Training and Education

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

My redirect was reverted without, in my opinion, a valid reason, so I'm taking it here. This is a training branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and their article is already fraught with POV and directory-type information. This "school" of theirs seems to have no independent notability, and the article is basically a brochure, with goals and requirements and not, as one would expect in an encyclopedia, a well-balanced and well-verified overview and history of the place. The subject broadly speaking cannot complain of its coverage in Wikipedia (see, for instance, Governing Body Commission), and one wonders whether we are not being used for publicity purposes--but that's by the by. This organization, I submit, does not have independent notability. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject has enough reliable sources to show notability. Article needs work. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:45, 18 May 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, czar ♔ 01:16, 19 May 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, czar ♔ 22:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources massively fail WP:RS. Article fails WP:NRV. Subject does not appear to be a generally recognized degree granting secondary school. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. Article appears to be an advertisement and severely fails WP:NOT. Between its obviously promotional nature and the complete lack of reliable sourcing this thing needs to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 2 June 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Coxe

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

advertisement, perhaps self-promo The Banner talk 22:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G-11. I don't think this one is debatable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 2 June 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. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Shaw (boxing promoter)

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

Non-notable boxing promoter. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG and nothing else shows notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly unsourced article--fails WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 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. --BDD (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Payne (boxer)

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: It definitely needs a lot of work, but a professional boxer who died as a result of a bout seems pretty notable to me. It just needs more sources. Johnny338 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in the ring while tragic are not unique enough to confer notability by themselves.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and the coverage of him concerning his death in the ring falls under WP:BLP1E. Jakejr (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX and I agree with the BLP1E comment. Papaursa (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBOX and GNG. Coverage is routine or BLP1E.Mdtemp (talk) 18:26, 2 June 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 keep per WP:SK#1. In a comment within the discussion, the nominator states, "I'm convinced it does not need to be deleted". This is essentially a withdrawal of the nomination. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Wilson

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

The links that reference this article are "Anita Wilson's official website and messageboard and Wilson's Sony website" These both link to the same page, and the "Anita Wilson at AllMusic" links to a different artist. The linked album "Worship Soul" is a newly created stub with a badly edited box in it. Tomato 33 (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just added three sources. They are not very strong sources, but they do establish at least a degree of notability.- Mr X 20:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think you just solved the problem. I'm convinced it does not need to be deleted Tomato 33 (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 May 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) --Jakob (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley (singer)

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

I see no evidence that this article satisfied WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO or any related policy. The "sources" presented manifestly fail the test set by WP:RS. We have:

A glowing puff piece from MTV, in the form of "10 things you didn't know about Smiley"
A press release
A directory entry

The article makes claims that, were they borne out by reliable sources, might indicate notability. However, before those claims can even be considered, they do need to be substantiated by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", something that plainly has yet to occur. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Subject has been "Best Act of Romania" during MTV Europe Music Awards in 2013 and was nominated several times in earlier years. Also long standing artist with the popular Simplu as their lead singer. He is also one of four coaches in the Romanian version of The Voice called Vocea României for all three seasons of the Romanian series thus far and has won with his contestant Ştefan Stan in season 1. Clearly a notable Romanian artist. werldwayd (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can make whatever claims you want about this individual. As long as they aren't substantiated by significant coverage in reliable sources, they're meaningless for our purposes. Once that substantiation occurs, only then we can think about whether anything in his career makes him eligible for inclusion under WP:MUSICBIO points 2-12. For now, nothing you say is confirmed by any source even remotely acceptable under WP:RS or WP:V. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as above Won "Best Act of Romania" at the MTV EMA's so thus is notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also added many references to alleviate concerns by colleague Biruitorul. Please take these amendments into consideration before commenting as they came after his legitimate notes. Wikipedia is a learning process even for long-established editors like me. werldwayd (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ......I do take amendments into consideration before voting, Despite his note I still believe being in the EMA's is notable, and I totally agree WP is a learning curve for everyone I think. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 19:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Davey and WerldwaydAdamh4 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to Smiley (Romanian singer) as there are a number of other, more notable, singers on Wikipedia known as "Smiley". Tris2000 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Teacher Training Institute

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

I know that schools receive special preference here but do we really allow a totally unreferenced stub like this? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of a higher quality article.--Laun chba ller 20:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:N -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force (game)

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

I couldn't find evidence of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: This article has no sources, lacks notability, and looks to be something straight out of an advertisement. It fails across the board. See WP:NOT#DICT and WP:OR. Johnny338 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article lacks sources. See WP:V. Jimqode (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N is a bit of a stretch to prove, but the above !votes are wrong--remember we delete things based on sources existing, not being in the article. A web search shows sources, including 11 pieces in The General (which is not independent, but is a very strong indication this saw coverage in 3rd party magazines from the time). In any case, there is no case for deletion as there is an obvious redirect target. Hobit (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some looking and only found one source, and it's not the best [1]. I'm certain there would be reviews, but they would be in paper form from 30 years ago, so finding them is nearly impossible. Hobit (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Hobit, do you have links to your research and can you please add them to the article? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Boleyn, they show up on a search for 'Avalon Air Force' (no quotes) which I assume you did before sending it to AfD. But all links can be found at http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3608/air-force. I don't have access to the magazines, so I can't add references (I can only see titles and authors). Hobit (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without actually having read any reliable sources, I really don't think you can say your research has proved notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I said it's a stretch to prove. Rather there are 11 articles on the subject. Most, if not all, clearly meet all the parts of WP:N other than independence. But I think it provides a great likelihood that there are independent sources our there (not to mention while the publisher isn't independent, the authors in many cases are). But arguments like not meeting WP:V are clearly wrong--or just referring to the current state of the article, which isn't generally all that relevant at AfD. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For those who are not familiar with the genre, the source cited, The General, was the game publisher's house organ. Articles appearing there are a very strong indication of nothing other than AH marketing their own products. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't read it at the time, but looking over old issues, 11 articles on one game seems fairly rare. Hobit (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I tried to find sources for this, the only things I can find are user-generated board game clubs and other similar sites. Going through 15 pages of Google, Bing, and Yahoo search results I couldn't find anything relevant to point out the notability of this board game. As such the article clearly falls under WP:OR and fails WP:N. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:03, 5 June 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. Closing this early per the consensus that has formed here. The nominator withdrew, and the sole remaining delete !vote has been countered by improvements within the article. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All About You (film)

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

I couldn't find that this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 4 years, so I thought a discussion was needed. Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has no citations and therefore is composed entirely of original research. Johnny338 (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The initial state of the article was fairly bad and it did take some digging, but I found that RT has four reviews for the film and I found a DVD Talk review. It also seems to have won some awards at notable film festivals and altogether this is enough to justify it passing NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or speedy keep after an expected withdrawal). To Boleyn: With respects, being neglected is a reason to use some WP:BEFORE and fix, not delete. See WP:NOTCLEANUP. To Johnny338: Simply lacking citations does not automatically make a sourcable topic "original research". And while yes, the article as first nominated had issues, they were addresable. A little research and editing by User:Tokyogirl79 brought the article into line with MOS:FILM. The film easily meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded searches:

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

Keep it's sourced and meets notability guideline for films LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All's well that ends well. The article was improved, and that's all that's important. Rotten Tomatoes is a good starting point for notability, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the article was improved there doesn't seem to be any reason to delete it. That's what these discussions are for, it seems. Adamh4 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm happy that it meets the guidelines now. I withdraw my nomination, although as there was another delete vote, I'm unsure that this can be made a speedy keep? However, the article is totally different to the article nominated. Thanks for the comments and for User:Tokyogirl79's hard work. Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the withdrawal. As Johnny338 was invited back to this discussion and has not returned (yet). As his first reason to delete was addressed and his second was simply incorrect, I think this can indeed be closed early. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:50, 27 May 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 per G5. -- Atama頭 15:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Tandon

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

Fails to meet WP:NACTOR. G S Palmer (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Geeta is a known stuntwoman and actress. Moreover she is best known for her tenure in Hindi notable TV show Khatron Ke Khiladi 5.少林足球 (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep notable article. Just needed to be improved. 42.104.2.171 (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)— 42.104.2.171 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G5 Speedy Delete Another TekkenJinKazama sock, another NN article. tutterMouse (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G5 Speedy Delete Concur this is another sock of TJK. Also note that this article was deleted on May 8th as it was created by another TJK sock. Ravensfire (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: all four users reported as socks: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama. G S Palmer (talk) 15:24, 27 May 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. --BDD (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Parsley

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

I can find no significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources about Brian Parsley. The appearances on TV are not about him, but are interviewing him about other topic(s). Whpq (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 May 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, czar ♔ 01:18, 19 May 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, czar ♔ 17:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:44, 26 May 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 23:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Montag

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

Fails WP:GNG. The reliable sources I find about her are just talking about her recent engagement or her short stint on I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here. She's notable for being Heidi Montag's sister and notability isn't WP:INHERITED. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 14 May 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) 02:23, 19 May 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, czar ♔ 17:39, 26 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Soldier of Green Park

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

There are really no reliable sources to prove that the ghost exists. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have to prove existence, just notability. I honestly can't find anything out there that shows that this specific specter has been the focus of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources on the article, two of them aren't actually about this specific ghost and were actually about some of the other ghosts mentioned in passing. The only one left is a book source that is completely unsearchable and I'm somewhat forced to also assume that the book doesn't mention this ghost either and is also about the other ghosts that were mentioned in the article. I couldn't really find anything in general about this specific male soldier. The most I could find are extremely generalized statements about ghosts in general that were seen in the park, but nothing that would count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject seems to fail WP:FRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Alexandra

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

WP:NOTE Architect without any noteable building work Amortias (T)(C) 10:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. lacks what we typically expect from notable architects like major awards or designing notable buildings. LibStar (talk) 09:52, 17 May 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, czar ♔ 17:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable career. No in-depth sourcing. wirenote (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Berg and Alexandra (the architectural practice in which he worked) which already has a duplicate of this content. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have found considerable references establishing that he was a notable 'post modernist' architect during the 1950s-60s. Dan arndt (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Relisted, I'd like to see discussion of the sources added by Dan arndt on 26 May, which do not appear to have been in view for most of this discussion: [2]. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Café owner dies in Europe" news item does not add much of a notability to an "architect". If I am not missing anything, all sources make trivial mentions of the person. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Present ref 17 about his 1951 "maisonettes" says "A significant early work by this important modernist architect. " Note that a RS calls him an "important modernist architect." Other refs from reliable and independent sources say he was then a leading architect in his country. Satisfies WP:N and WP:BIO. His work included residences as well as public buildings such as libraries and galleries. His modern style was notable at the time, and notability is not temporary. The opinions of Wikipedia editors that he was not important are trumped by reliable sources saying literally that he was a leading and important architect. Edison (talk) 18:33, 26 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Icarus Interstellar

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

Does not pass WP:ORG

A number of blog entries hit on some of the people involved on a slow news day when these guys said they started working on Warp drive but no real coverage.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/06/this-is-what-a-warp-drive-spaceship-looks-like/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507175838.htm
http://www.space.com/21452-interstellar-spaceflight-starship-congress.html (Only this one appears to mention the org, the rest are all talking about the guy)
http://www.gizmag.com/antimatter-starship/23345/ Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not True: These guys have published in established scientific journals and thus pass the criteria. Links to some publications have been added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanbruystelghem (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blakeredfield (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Icarus Interstellar now operates the Anchorage Makerspace, a bi-annual conference Starship Congress and has a student chapter at Drexel University, aside from the 8 research projects they coordinate and a team of 166 volunteer researchers by the last count. The arguments for deletion being based on coverage of their warp drive research (which are simply most popular to journalists for the wow factor they carry), are more a boon for the organization than arguments against the value of having a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakeredfield (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is not synonymous with Notable. Are there WP:RELIABLESOURCES discussing the elements you have mentioned? If so, bring them up. If not, we are back to a simple question. Does the article passWP:GNG. I submit the answer is no. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mgilster (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Here are some references to Starship Congress in the media:[reply]

Here is a reference to the Drexel University student chapter:

This Drexel Student Group Wants to Go on a Field Trip, and You Won't Believe How Far

Here is a reference to a NY Times article discussing Icarus Interstellar participation at the DARPA 100-Year Starship Study Symposium:

Not Such a Stretch to Reach for the Stars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgilster (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more articles in the media about Icarus Interstellar, Project Icarus, work by Icarus Interstellar members, or citing Icarus Interstellar members' expertise:

Here are sources specific to Project Persephone, an Icarus Interstellar project:

Planet organic: the professor who wants to send a city into space — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgilster (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Space ark will save man from a dying planet
Project Persephone page at University of Greenwich site

Here are some abstracts for articles in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, published 2011-2013:

Here is a page from the British Interplanetary Society (BIS) about a workshop hosted by BIS and Icarus Interstellar:

Project Icarus – Update and Concept Designs

The Icarus Interstellar article definitely needs improvement. I have provided a number of sources which could be used to improve the article. These sources show that Icarus Interstellar is a notable organization for the following reasons:

Icarus Interstellar has been the subject of significant international coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.
The depth of coverage is substantial - several articles are solely about the work of the organization.
The intended audience of the coverage ranges from space enthusiasts to experts.
The sources cited are independent, reliable, and demonstrate both interest in Icarus Interstellar and notability of Icarus Interstellar as a reliable organization with expertise in its subject area.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a volunteer with Icarus Interstellar working primarily on the official website. If no one else updates the article with the sources I have provided, I will do so. Mgilster (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks Mgilster, you've done a good job. --do ncr am 02:15, 25 May 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Mgilster, Who's done an excellent job!, (Thanks Mgilster! :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mgilster, we appreciate the work! Adamh4 (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with some of the references I have gathered and will continue to do so. However, I am leaving on vacation for most of June. I hope there is enough consensus now to keep the article, and if not, I ask that we keep discussion open until I can work on it further. I have also gathered some more sources:

Icarus Interstellar founder Richard Obousy gave a talk at EVE Online's FanFest
- EVE Online / Dust 514 – Fanfest 2013
- LEADING SCIENTISTS TO SHARE VISION OF HUMANITY'S FUTURE AMONG THE STARS AT EVE FANFEST

May 2014 articles on Project Persephone
- May 28, 2014 - Space Invaders: New Developments in Starship Architecture
- May 22, 2014 - Stars in their eyes: architects and scientists mull designs for ark in space

Project Hyperion What Would an Interstellar 'Worldship' Look Like?

Project Bifrost Project Bifrost: Rockets of the Future?

The Hyperion and Bifrost articles are published on Discovery.com. These were authored by Icarus Interstellar members. I think it is notable that Discovery.com has Icarus Interstellar members contribute articles, but if they are not an appropriate source, let me know. Mgilster (talk) 22:25, 30 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VoodooScript

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

Neologism with no signs of more or less widespread use, let alone compliance with WP:GNG. Proposed deletion declined by the author of the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 15:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 15:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete: Looks to me to be in violation of WP:NOT#DICT. Johnny338 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Per nom. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT#DICT. -- Jersey92 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; neologism with no third-party refs. PaintedCarpet (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable neologism. The article presents only a single primary source, and I can't find any independent, secondary reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT Adamh4 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author of the article left a comment on the talk page of this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:27, 27 May 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Kästner Museum

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

Reads like an advertisement of the museum. Unsourced content. Needs major work to remain as a sustainable article. TRL (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like someone saw this on deWiki and esWiki where the article is since 2007 and thought we should have it as well. With the name of Erich Kästner behind it there must be sourcing somewhere especially as this is his "home museum" and an example of the concept of a micro-museum. Anyway while a quick google-search did not show much of the usual bla-bla I found this gem on scholar.google.com: Maria Brückner , 2009, Eine Analyse der literaturmusealen Konzeption des Erich Kästner Museums, München, GRIN Verlag GmbH, http://www.grin.com/de/e-book/156382/eine-analyse-der-literaturmusealen-konzeption-des-erich-kaestner-museums . Cleanup obviously required. Agathoclea (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've started adding what I can find; there must be newspaper coverage somewhere but Google is not cooperating. Unfortunately the Brückner source is publish-on-demand and is just a seminar paper, but I'll see if it leads me to any sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but work on the issues, as begun by Yngvadottir, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yngvadottir has improved it enough that it passes notability guidelines and it can continue to be worked on/improved. Since when is "needs major work" a reason for AFD? StarM 02:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for the confidence in me expressed above, but what puts it over the top for me is that the page creator has come up with a reference for an award. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:02, 28 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Ziaul Haque

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

Can't find evidence this meets our criteria for notability. I've deleted a lot of material that was copyvio from an article by his wife at [3] and it appears that his notability was being asserted as the author of "Give me a Sky to Fly" but a search on that and his name turned up little more than that article (note that his name alone doesn't help as there are so many people with that name). The article is basically unsourced so far as his actual biography goes, and even 'columnist' is just sourced to one newspaper article he wrote. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's been suggested at the creator's talk page User talk:Farhana2012 that he may also be its subject - certainly their edits seem to have promoted the subject. He's never responded. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The "early years" section alone is entirely unsourced. Article focuses on trivial matters and ultimately seems like self-promotion. Johnny338 (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note the journals listed. The "International Journal of English Linguistics" is published by the "Canadian Center of Science and Education;" which is on Beall's list of questionable, scholarly open-access publishers[4] as is the "International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention"[5]. Haven't checked the rest yet. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC. Not notable. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Months ago this article's creator was spamming the poetry article with promotional material sourced to falsified or obviously unreliable sources. The tone of and sources for Md. Ziaul Haque don't look to be any better. Psychonaut (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Article appears to have no sources of genuine credibility. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Johnny338 EdJohnston, Psychonaut, Binksternet, there seems to be a campaign to insert this person into various articles. I did a cleanup yesterday and almost everything I did has been reverted. See edits by 117.18.231.44 (talk · contribs), 117.18.231.54 (talk · contribs) and 117.18.231.40 (talk · contribs) - there may be more, I haven't finished checking. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rangeblock_possible.3F --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 31 May 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. Even discounting the single-purpose account !votes, there is consensus here that this is synthesis at best and at worst promotional of a concept that has apparently not received significant secondary coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bioregulatory medicine

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

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

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

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

The manifesto of some form of alternative medical science without any indication that it enjoys any kind of backing or support, let alone a scientific evidence base. JFW | T@lk 13:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as synthesis (and it's a manifesto too). At first glance it may appear to be well sourced but the sources generally don't mention "Bioregulatory medicine". bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most of the article is blatant WP:SYNTH (sources don't actually use the term, which appears to be a neologism; could not find a WP:MEDRS compliant source discussing the term in any detail). Clearly promotional. Yobol (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article seems to be advanced and integrative as there seems to be increasing number of books and scientific articles about Bioregulatory medicine; lot of sources/citations to corroborate concept. Clearly should stay. Biomediccentre (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)— Biomediccentre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: account created 22/5, this is the contributor's third edit. JFW | T@lk 18:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You could stop the article from being deleted if you added those scientific articles to the article. Pubmed has nothing. JFW | T@lk 18:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely keep as article as it is on the new scientific frontiers of interdisciplinary science. Found plenty of citations, so do not understand reason for delete, as it seems dogmatic view. Wikipedia is rightly updating new scientific advances, and should not be only commenting on old science. Bogorodica (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)— Bogorodica (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: editor's first edit on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 18:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. May be able to merge whatever is left with Alternative medicine assuming we find sources showing notability.--McSly (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per advanced new interdisciplinary trend in science. This seems to be a combined approach between Alternative and Allopathic medicine, so it should stay and weed out parts that are WP:SYNTH.--not registered (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.212.110 (talk) — 217.155.212.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I don't think deleting it is the proper solution. I think we can make edits to the article that removes the parts which violate WP:SYNTH without removing the page completely. Adamh4 (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that after removal of all SYNTH, there is no evidence of notability based on independent sourcing. Yobol (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to remove all SYNTH, and keep article in remainder form. Disagree that there is no notability, as there is plenty of corroborative scientific evidence, and it seems that notability in Bioregulatory medicine like in any system applied scientific approach of interdisciplinary nature needs to look notability in that context. Bogorodica (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is systematically deleting References from the article in order to create impression of lack of notability; references that refer to homestasis or bioregulation (which is same meaning) do refer to Bioregulatory medicine; reference validity is in its meaning, rather then verbatim correlations--not registered (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,this page exemplifies the right step in consciousness that medicine is taking! definitely keep it up or merge elsewhere! knowledge like this needs to be shared! — Preceding unsigned comment added by contribs) 15:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Evolve1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Hello to all, i am a Medical Doctor from Greece specialised in Oncolgy, my opinion about Bioregulatory Medicine is not to delete this truly Medical Paradigm but i-you and all of us, have to do what passes from our hands to PUT IT AS A LESSON INSIDE MEDICAL SCHOOLS AROUND THE WORLD, DOCTORS HAS TO HAVE SPHERICAL APPROACH TO MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE, WE ARE TREATING HUMAN BEINGS NOT IDEAS AND MONEY. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FROM MY DEEPEST AREAS OF MY HEART. [[User:kuvades7|kuvades7] (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)— kuvades7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I'm fully supportive of this page and think that the references that are provided in support of Bioregulatory Medicine are appropriate. The citations are naturally from different medical sciences, because medicine is a unified clinical methodology. 92.1.64.130 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppets: I do hope that whoever closes this AfD notices the extensive sockpuppetry on one side of the debate. bobrayner (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
wikipeople express their views believing in consensus, but above editor who asked for deletion in first place, believes his decision should be above all others, hence does not hesitate from smearing campaign.Bogorodica (talk) 00:14, 2 June 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 Sankar (film director). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oru valakilukkathinte Oarmakku

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

Page doesnt meet notability criteria, first two links on internet searches are WP articles the next doxeon were translation sites that appear to have cached the translation Amortias (T)(C) 22:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comprehensively failing the notability criteria for books. Salih (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sankar (film director), neutral on keeping the edit history. The merge discussion at Talk:Sankar (film director)#Merge in Sankar's non-notable works into Sankar (film director) went nowhere. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have we check foreign sources for Oru valakilukkathinte Oarmakku? It does not seem to be something we can just find on google and this is the English encyclopedia of all things not just the English encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:29, 18 May 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 12:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Indian name. No prejudice for recreation if sufficient sources can be found. Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trigunayat

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

Article is very confusing and it is hard to discern what the subject really is. Has no references, and is an orphan other than a talk page of a user that is long inactive. cyberdog958^Talk 07:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If anything, should be merged somewhere else. -- bydand•talk 08:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is an Indian surname. The content of our article is unverifiable, from what I've found. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 20 May 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 12:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indian name. Does not appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone article. Reserve the right to recreate if sufficient sources appear to establish WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Mail

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

2nd nomination, not sure how it survived the first time. Unremarkable musician, referencing mainly his own website. Per this article being up, surely some minor bands I know should have articles too (and I'm sure they'd love to, just like this guy, who links to his own Wikipedia on his own website). See previous nomination -- bydand•talk 08:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a list of reviews here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As noted in the first AfD, he does seem to have received substantive coverage in Australian music media. The list on his website isn't particularly extensive or complete. Here is a 2013 review in The Australian [6]. Some other recent examples of apparently substantive coverage, both positive and negative: [7][8][9]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a badly made article, that needs some rewriting with proper formatting, particularly for references. It has some highly misleading labels of "references", such as the "Rolling Stones" item, which is actually nothing of note. But, I see some substantial coverage from independent sources.[10][11]. So, it clearly meets WP:GNG. --Rob (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage in The Australian, AU Review, performance on ABC Australia, etc. is sufficient I think. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 20 May 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 12:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Had this been a first AFD I'd of voted to Keep & Improve but it's had 5 years to improve & IMHO its barely improved at all!, How it survived the last AFD is beyond me!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: AfD is not cleanup and bad shape of an article should not be a reason for deletion in most cases. See also WP:NOEFFORT. Is the page so bad that it is harmful in its current state? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm well aware it's for CLEANUP, It's had 5 years for someone to CLEANITUP ... and no one has, I'm not saying it's harmful- I'm saying it's not to Wikipedia standards.

So, now Wikipedia:Notability. Did you check the sources listed above? [12][13][14][15][16][17]. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vejvančický - I haden't bothered reading the keeps since I assumed they were all per WP:SOMEPOLICY, But since I was wrong and that there are plenty of cites to back up his notability I say Keep as notable musician. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I never heard of many of the Australian sources cited here, but upon review they look plenty reliable. The article is a bit of a mess, but the subject is notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:24, 27 May 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 due to lack of discussion in 3 weeks. No prejudice against renomination at any time. (non-admin closure) --Jakob (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight Investments

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

Not a notable company JDDJS (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The globe and Mail ref cited seems to indicate that it makes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), although the article needs expansion and more refs added. - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 11 May 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:38, 18 May 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 12:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 2012 article in The Globe & Mail is a routine report on a deal; it provides a verifiable reference on the firm's existence but I think falls short of demonstrating that it is of encyclopaedic notability. Nor are multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) turning up better. (Note that there are firms of the same name in Texas and Wales.) AllyD (talk) 13:31, 26 May 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. --BDD (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Josh Villanueva

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

Only sources are to non-independent websites (such as sites he contributed to), or to otherwise unreliable sources. Not enough coverage in reliable sources (this coming from a regular Rappler reader). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Has a lot of webhits, but that's because he's a news writer. None of the hits, however, demonstrate his individual notability. 舎利弗 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 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 12:46, 26 May 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cueing (playback)

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

No references to verify and honestly I can't understand what the subject is about. Jim Carter ^(talk) 12:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 12:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the article with a reference, more detail, and categoriesOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This could be part of an article on DJs, either in clubs or in radio broadcasting in the vinyl record era, but there seem to be enough refs to justify a standalone article. A DJ had to cue a vinyl record to avoid the usual results of pressing "play" on a turntable, which resulted in: a delay, then a crunch when the stylus set down on the record, then a variable one to two second delay until the music started. A turntable with a felt mat could allow the record to be played through the cueing amplifier on the control board to the DJs headphones (thus not going over the air) and when the sound started the record could be rotated back a bit so it was ready to play, with the turntable still spinning. A vocal announcement of the record could be made, with the phono pickup connected to the outgoing program amplifier, then at the desired instant releasing the record would cause it to start playing immediately. Some of the refs I easily found at Google book search are: [18] "Ultimate Beginner DJ Styles: The Turntable DJ" by Ben James, [19] "Audio Production Worktext: Concepts, Techniques, and Equipment" by David E. Reese et al, [20] "Radio in the Movies: A History and Filmography, 1926-2010" by Laurence Etling, [21] "DJ Skills: The essential guide to Mixing and Scratching" by Stephen Webber and [22] "The World of DJs and the Turntable Culture" by Todd Souvignier. There are lots more refs with significant coverage of this process. The article is anemic in refs, but refs exist which would allow the article to be improved. Edison (talk) 02:15, 19 May 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 12:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has reliable sources, though I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to an article on DJs either. Johnny338 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hardly unique to DJing, very common term in music/audio see cue. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Cueing or cuing is certainly something that the DJ does, but I don't see why Wikipedia needs an article about it. It's just part of the process. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 26 May 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 Jannat. .... a bit of information, presuming it is verifiable j⚛e decker ^talk 18:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good News 4 Music Vol.1

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

Delete or Merge with Jannat. Totally unsourced article about a studio album by Jannat, with no indication of why it would need a separate article. Thomas.W ^talk 15:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: No references for proving the notability. OccultZone (Talk) 15:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 20 May 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 12:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: No citations at all means this article is nothing but a waste of space. A brief mention of it on Jannat's page would suffice. Johnny338 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 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 soft delete. --BDD (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dim Lights, Thick Smoke And Hillbilly Music - Country & Western Hit Parade 1958

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

Deprodded with invalid reasons of WP:PRETTY and WP:OSE. No sourcing found whatsoever on this album. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 10 May 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, czar ♔ 17:06, 18 May 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 12:43, 26 May 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 per G-11 unambiguous advertising or promotion.. (non-admin closure) -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius Arry Sy

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

There are two articles on the same person, both written by that person himself (wp:autobiography). The articles lack reliable sources. Although Google gives some results for this person, I think that he fails WP:MUSBIO. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Ignatius Arry deleted per WP:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Auto bio of non notable individual so heavily embellished that it is now a hoax. Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:11, 12 May 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, czar ♔ 17:06, 18 May 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 12:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as purely promotional with no neutral version in the page history (WP:CSD#G11). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's a Shorty Award? If it were somehow notable, the subject would have a slim chance of notability. It's not. Nothing else comes close to supporting the subject's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to establish notability, self-promotion. Much of the article consists of narration of the article's subject about himself. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:58, 1 June 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brayut Tourist Village

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

WP:NOTE A small attraction with no major notability through either news or speciality Amortias (T)(C) 10:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sleman. May not be independently notable, but the Slemen article presently doesn't mention it. I found this article which verifies Brayut Tourist Village's existence in Slemen. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 11 May 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, czar ♔ 17:08, 18 May 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 12:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. So small and insignificant I oppose merge as well. LibStar (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This appears to an actual populated place over which the government has created a "tourist village" to attract tourism. It does need some improvement, however.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's the deal. A "tourist village" appears to be marketing term most often used in the Special Region of Yogyakarta in Java in Indonesia. (I've just created Tourist village, which has an article on the Indonesian wiki, id:Desa wisata. Its really just a populated place where they hope to bring in more tourists, and a populated place will always be ripe for having an article as long as its existence can be verified, which it can here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are quite common here in Yogyakarta. I know four or five off the top of my head. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per general outcomes for populated places and references proving existence in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Crisco - seemingly a real and populated place with "tourist village" added as a tourist draw card. Successful or not, that doesn't stop is from being a real place. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Milowent and Crisco. --Bejnar (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poiwan

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

WP:NOTE not notable in itself as a village. Even if it has notable people from there Not in herited Amortias (T)(C) 10:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like an actual population center to me [23] and with a population of over 2,000. --Oakshade (talk) 17:52, 10 May 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, czar ♔ 17:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The village has a population larger than 2,000. I have seen articles about counties having lesser population.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:12, 20 May 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 12:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Officially recognized populated places are keepers by longstanding consensus. (Can't find that policy, but it's out there somewhere.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 27 May 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). Additionally, the notion of a merge can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pasir Padi

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

WP:NOTE A beach with no major history or notability Amortias (T)(C) 11:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bangka Island. Rather than deletion a mention in the island that it is in would be a better option. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:05, 14 May 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, czar ♔ 17:12, 18 May 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 12:41, 26 May 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 Norval, Ontario. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Road Enclave, Ontario

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

No indication of notability: should be either deleted or merged with Norval, Ontario or Halton Hills. G S Palmer (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge per nom Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 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, czar ♔ 17:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect after shortening and merger to Norval, Ontario. A non-notable neighbourhood. --Bejnar (talk) 03:01, 23 May 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 12:41, 26 May 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. --BDD (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Itay Paz

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

Lack of coverage in independent sources leads me to believe the subject is not notable enough for an article at the present time. Diannaa (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable author. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 12 May 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, czar ♔ 17:48, 18 May 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 12:36, 26 May 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 23:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nakhjir (company)

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

It's tough to verify the sources as many are in ~~Arabic~~ Persian, but couldn't find anything significant beyond this page and basic company related stuff in Google Books. As it's not totally unambiguously promotional and a couple of the sources seem to possibly not be primary I'm bringing to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise very sincerely for getting the language wrong as it has been pointed out that the sources are in Persian. That does not mean they are invalid sources, but the references in the article at present are: 1) Company's About Us page. 2) Company website. 3) Currently unavailable, server not found. 4) According to Google Translate these are search results, this reference is not about the company but is used to confirm the translation of the name. 5) Search results showing store locations in Europe - for OPTICIANS? 6) Company website. 7) Company website. Where are verifiable, independent sources for this company? Mabalu (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add persian sources in farsi wikipedia then build english info for that?we can publish extra references about company! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.26.172 (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate Persian language sources would be absolutely acceptable, if an unrelated third party who can read Persian is able to verify them. However, they need to be published/written by people who are independent to the company, and not reprints of the company's own press releases or promotional material. Mabalu (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Added more information and sources about page!please see — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooreya 2008 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 31 May 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, czar ♔ 18:06, 18 May 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 12:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Waterloo Road characters. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Flynn

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

Could find no significant coverage in third party sources to show subject meets WP:GNG NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet notability guidelines. Very slender coverage in third-party sources. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a suitable source. Neither is an interview.SillyPotatoe (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: Even though I agree that at the minute this article doesn't match the Wikipedia guidelines, I think that if we put a notice up on the article or the talk page asking people to help tidy it up, it can be made to match the guidelines. Also, where would we put the information that we have here (about all of the programmes she has been in) if we deleted the article? Ilovethecbbcarticles (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD's are generally seen as notices that the article must be improved during the course of the AFD or be deleted. It's been a week - have you found any sources that show notability? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:48, 26 May 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 12:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Waterloo Road characters - She's known for being in Waterloo Road and to be honest I think that's the only thing she's ever going to be widely known for at the moment. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
actually she is widley known for presenting CBBC and starring in Dani's Castle — Preceding unsigned comment added by SillyPotatoe (talk • contribs) 14:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Waterloo Road was shown to a wide audience whereas presenting on CBBC and being in Dani's Castle is obviously only shown to kids.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Davey2010teenagers also sometimes watch some shows on cbbc like Friday Download SillyPotatoe (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Waterloo Road characters per Davey2010, as not independently notable. --Bejnar (talk) 02:52, 5 June 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 per WP:CSD#G12, copyvio. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suditi Global Academy

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

An article about a school which reads like an advertisement. On the other hand. No reliable third party sources were provided. Now what should be done with this article? Jim Carter ^(talk) 11:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as CSD G12 copyvio Delete. Fails notability through absence of coverage in third party reliable sources. Reads like an advertising flyer for the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philg88 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 26 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Speedy Delete based on Gene93k's comment. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a secondary school and we usually keep them. However, the article reads like an advertisement because it is mostly copied from the school's website (here, here and here). I'm leaning toward WP:TNT. • Gene93k (talk)

Thanks Gene93k for the note, but if the text is copied from the schools website then I think it maybe under copyvio and must be deleted. BTW this is the first time I saw you commenting on AfD :) Jim Carter ^(talk) 06:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 11:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 11:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 May 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 redirect to Chief of Defence (Denmark). Please take care of such issues through normal editing in the future. Note from their respective histories that the list started separate and then was merged into the parent article just last year. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chiefs of Defence of Denmark

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

Duplicate of Chief of Defence (Denmark) Gbawden (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Premise (programming language)

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

Apparently non-notable programming language in development. The only sources that even menition it are from the developers of the program Spinning Spark 10:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent sources and no evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - programming language (software) article of unclear notability. Refs provided either do not mention the subject, as they predate its existence, or are papers by Miller, who, as an author of the language, is not an independent source. A search turned up no independent RS coverage of this language.Dialectric (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—no claim for notability, not seeing anything in the peer-reviewed literature. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same concerns as Dialectric (above) - no doubt of the language's existence however until it's covered by secondary sources it shouldn't feature. CaptRik (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting notability requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 19:15, 29 May 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. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Leroy

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

As written, this resume-like article fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Prodded by User:Mz7, deprodded by creator, User:Leroy-former-team whose username suggests a WP:COI issue, particularly given the Oswald_Leroy#Team section of the article. I am pretty sure this bio is written by a former PhD student of the subject. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACADEMICS. Appears to have made a fair contribution to his field but I can find no sources to indicate his contribution is substantial by our standards. Ivanvector (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. GS h-index of 14 in low cited field plus honorary doctorate meets WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Does h-index account for an author listed far down in the list of authors, and/or does it matter in this field? When I was going through Google Scholar there seemed to be many papers that he has co-authored but few where his name was listed in a citation. For the purposes of NACADEMICS I think being cited is much more important. But I'm not all too familiar with Google Scholar or h-index. Ivanvector (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

from the creators of this article : we have now added a description of his most important contributions with references (articles by others that refer to Leroy's fundamental works). On the link to the list with honorary doctorates of Gdansk University (see last reference in the article) you will also see that we find in the list Poland’s former President Lech Wałęsa, Germany’s former President Richard von Weizsäcker, French former President François Mitterrand, US former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel (User:Leroy-former-team) — Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the list. However, the claim that these papers are significant must be supported by an independent source. I don't have access to the sources given but it appears to me to be links to other scholarly articles which Dr. Leroy has been cited in. I'm not sure that this satisfies NACADEMIC but it does seem that the volume of cited works indicates notability. Reading further into the guideline we find that persons granted honorary degrees are considered notable, which I didn't think was the case but I won't oppose the guideline. Changing to keep. Ivanvector (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as other editors have pointed out you appear to have a conflict of interest in editing this article. COI contributions are sometimes frowned upon. Please take a moment to read our plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and you should be able to keep yourself out of trouble here. Please also remember to "sign" your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~ which is converted to a signature and timestamp by our software. Ivanvector (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- With regards to the h-index, I'll ping User:Randykitty. You are right that the current guidelines states that all and any honorary degrees may satisfy notability criteria. I'll inquire at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The only thing towards meeting WP:ACADEMIC is, in my eyes, the honorary doctorate. The Web of Science indicates that Leroy has over 100 publications, but together they have only been cited 837 times, which, like GS, gives an h-index of 14. Highest-cited papers 60, 35, 30. For a field like this, I don't think that is sufficient to meet WP:ACADEMIC#1, but as said, the honorary doctorate meets the letter of #1. I must admit that I find it surprising that someone with such a weak citation record already got an honorary doctorate over 20 years ago. Are we perhaps missing something here? I must say I have seen a person get an honorary doctorate because they were pals with an influential guy. Not saying that's the case here, but the mention "co-operation with scientists from the University of Gdańsk" does ring some warning bells, I think... --Randykitty (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- honorary doctorate from a substantial research university is enough. When the h-index numbers contradict the notability of the field, consider whether the h-index is the best measure for someone who did work in the 70s. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know the limitations of h, Michael, but Leroy regularly published (according to WoS) until 2005, so I maintain that the number of citations for a field like this is strangely low for someone who got an honorary doctorate. --Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The case for WP:PROF#C1 looks weak to nonexistent from the citation record, but the honorary doctorate and the foreign medal of the French Acoustical Society together add up to international recognition that has a high enough profile to pass #C2 for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 2 June 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. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion (music)

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

I proposed in 2008 for this article to be merged with jazz fusion, and although several editors protested against it, no one provided a reasonable argument. So now I'm proposing the deletion of this article, or redirection to jazz fusion. It is original research without a single source. Warning templates have been staying in the article since 2008, and no improvement has been made. Λeternus ^(talk) 09:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR and a violation of WP:V. If anyone wants to keep it, provide sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to indicate notability. I have looked and all I can find is Jazz fusion and fusion as a synonym for World music.--SabreBD (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely original research, no reliable sources, scrap it. Johnny338 (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Jazz fusion is one that has developed through a decent amount of attention and discussion down the years, as per the Talk page. It seems to share a kernel with this article, in its third paragraph. But outside that core, this article just seems to be broad and unreferenced discussion on an arbitrary range of hyphen "genres" that come and go. Arguably it could be morphed into a "List of crossover musical genres" (suitably referenced) but Fusion as named should just redirect to Jazz fusion. AllyD (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The jazz fusion article is the proper one to keep. This one tries to cover the same material and fails, violating WP:NOR and WP:V. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (no need for a merge) to jazz fusion. It is a valid term and should point to the existing article. This will also discourage re-creation. — Gwalla | Talk 19:38, 27 May 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. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Williams

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All previous AfDs were for the baseball player - not sure how to avoid listing them. Still the subject does not meet WP:NBOX and has not sown notability in marathon running. He was thinking about a Guinness World Record - no sign he even tried.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and doesn't appear to be notable for his running. I couldn't access any independent sources to show he meets WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not show shown as a boxer or runner and, based on my search, he also fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:40, 1 June 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. --BDD (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackboot Britain

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

I prodded it, then realized it was already proded few days ago. Upgrading to AfD as I've not seen that the creator has addressed the issues. No evidence this passes Wikipedia:Notability (books). Fans/publisher should be encouraged to create a wikia about this book first. Ping User:TheLongTone who did the org prod. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, no reliable & substantial third party sources. BTW article creator name suggests they may be author of book.TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. There just isn't anything out there to suggest this book is notable in the slightest. I'll give the editor the standard COI warning. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Self-published ebook, only 27 Google hits, 44 Bing. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 2 June 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 result, article was speedied as G11. — Gwalla | Talk 19:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Janoski

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

Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON, the article suffers from the promotional tone ("") and the "this is the next big thing" advertising tone: "Video Filming for first major release"... "First Major Record Deal". References are either insufficient (IMDb) or regional (Lancaster Journal). In good faith, I'd like to ask the article's author, User:VCoppola, to disclose his relation to the subject: this article looks like it's a PR piece written by a worker at whatever PR company is representing the subject, without any disclosures required by WP:COI. Or a family member, per "Paul Janoski" photo attribution at File:Sebastian Janoski Profile pic.jpg, which is also covered by that policy. Ps. Pinging User:Timtrent who accepted this at AfC. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 May 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 Ashley Tesoro#Ministry. ...without prejudice to deletion of the redirect if the target is deleted, of course. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tesoro Ministry Foundation

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

Non-notable organization. References only give passing mention. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage shown to pass WP:CORP/WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ashley Tesoro#Ministry. The foundation is already mentioned there, and there is no additional information in this article worth merging. --MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Ashley Tesoro article is problematic - all the references are primary. Its like a promotional walled garden.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest waiting until this is resolved, but you might consider AfDing it as well. MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:26, 30 May 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-deletion (A7, G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alamin Sami

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

No sources, seems self-reported or fan site. Includes a personal phone number JacobiJonesJr (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A biography by an editor of the same name: User:Alaminsami45. He's got a Facebook, he works as a programmer, he likes playing cricket and cards: all good material for a personal social media page but not of encyclopaedic notability. Due to the lack of claims of attained notability, I am also flagging for CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 26 May 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. While a pure majority here would lean that way, I have to add that the argument that BLP1E applies here was given low weight. BLP1E applies, according to the text of the policy, to low-profile individuals. The subject is a reality show participant. In a perfect world, the contradiction there would have been discussed by participants, as a finding of fact. This is not a perfect world. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Vlachos

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

Subject is the winner of a single season of a reality TV show season, and has no notability independent of that season's article. Wikipedia articles on single-season reality TV shows contestants have historically been deleted. Nightscream (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Nightscream (talk) 05:38, 26 May 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 May 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Most winners of Survivor have articles based solely on their notability from the program. I feel that this should meet the standard of notability required to keep, but if this is not the way the community sees it, then this is not the only article we should be deleting. WantaghNY (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope and breadth of the sources already in the article and the other reliable and verifiable sources specifically about Vlachos that could be added to the article clearly demonstrate that he meets the Wikipedia notability standard. Take a look at Template:Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants for a sample of the dozens of other winners and non-winners whose notability stems from their participation in the series. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really..? The guy has been on a wildly popular TV show, won the show, and received TONS of media coverage about the game and about his life outside of the game. Gloss • talk 04:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also, about the nominator's original statement saying "Wikipedia articles on single-season reality TV shows contestants have historically been deleted." -- you do realize that we have an article for every person who has made the top 12 of every American Idol season? Gloss • talk 04:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because American Idol contestants go onto enjoy careers as singers apart from their time in AI, and that tends to generate more coverage in secondary sources. Nightscream (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So? Many of them don't get record deals and instead only get appearances singing the national anthem in their hometowns and perform at bars there. Are you saying we should have an article for every single national anthem singer and every bar band in the country? That's a ludicrous idea, and people far more relevant than an eleventh-place Idol contestant are getting snubbed that way.

On this article, I say Keep because he won a million dollars on TV and has earned notoriety from the show the same way the AmIdol national anthem singers have. Plus, he's already considered one of the show's best players ever, and we have the sources to back things up. I see no reason to delete this. Andymancan1 (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am finding more sources that can be placed in the article, passes WP:GNG with the sources and coverage. [24], [25], [26], [27]. Sadly it appears the scandal is being covered by reliable sources which makes the person known more than just the winner of survivor. I also want to point out that "TV shows contestants have historically been deleted" is a broad statement, which TV shows for example? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor, for one. Look at the material in the Survivor section of Vlachos' article, which comprises most of its material. Isn't that same material be summarized and presented in the Survivor: Cagayan article? What coverage is there about Vlachos that is independent enough of the Survivor: Cagayan article that justifies a separate one? Nightscream (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just told you, the scandal that has come out post survivor that has been covered in reliable sources. As for TV show contestants when it comes to survivor there are plenty of articles that cover the winners but that is a separate area. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You casually mentioned some "scandal" in passing, but you didn't say what that scandal was. Are you referring to that congressman saying he should be fired? That's hardly a "scandal". It's a disgruntled viewer who happens to be a politician, using his position to express his ire. It's already mentioned in his article, and is hardly independent of the season itself, IMHO. Nightscream (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E which trumps BASIC. I realize this is either going to be a KEEP or a no consensus, but the fact that standards are and have been widely ignored, is a poor excuse for continuing the practice. Unless someone has evidence of some other claim to notability, this is a one event guy, end of story. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article itself has a template showing that most every season winner, not to mention some other contestants, have individual articles. AFD has resulted in keep before for winners, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Spradlin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Westman. Perhaps not all winners are notable, but Vlachos was a much-covered contestant in a popular season, and meets GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:23, 3 June 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. Numerically, I counted 18 Delete, 13 Keep, 1 Move. The raw count might have been just barely enough to justify a Delete outcome, but looking at the arguments to delete, I saw quite a few (nine, as I count them now) which were essentially, The topic is fine, but the article is badly written. This would work better if rewritten as prose, under a title such as Incest in Literature. Overall, I found those to be weak arguments for deletion. Some people pointed out that the previous AfD (seven years ago!) resulted in, essentially, Keep, but fix, and in all that time, nobody has fixed, so we should declare this a lost cause. Others countered that there are no deadlines.

For what it's worth, here's my collection of what I thought were the most significant sound bites. Many of these may be munged beyond recognition, but assembling this list helped me organize my thoughts, so I figured it's worth preserving (note: don't count the sound bites and expect them to match my tally above; they don't).

Delete: Little referencing, mostly fails RS. Fails V OR N and GNG.
Delete: Topic has merit; but list is completely out of control.
Delete: Blow up and start again
Delete: Indescriminate, no clear definition of "popular culture"
Delete: Time to blow it up.
Delete: Unsourced trivia. Focus is on Anglo-American culture.
Delete: per WP:IINFO
Delete: Laundry list, should convert to prose.
Delete: Rewrite in prose with some coherent vision.
Delete: per WP:INDISCRIMINATE
Delete: Unencyclopedic, OR, indiscriminate.
Delete: Most are notable (blue links) but not in context. WP:COATRACK
Delete: Unencyclopedic way to present information, but subject is notable
Delete: Worthy subject, bad article.
Delete: Mishmash of every mention in popular media.
Delete: Unsalvageable in it's current format.
Delete: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TNT, no prejudice for recreation as Incest in Literature.

Move to "Incest in fiction", remove mention of record albums. Subject has been written about by classic Greek playwrights, Faulkner, discussed in college literature classes, thus not trivial

Keep: Really interesting article.
Keep: The topic is quite notable as there are numerous books about it.
Keep: Notable subject, needs better sourcing, convert to prose.
Keep: Obviously notable and legitimate subject, fix what's broken.
Keep: Topic is notable, but trim trivial/unreferenced material.
Keep: Notable, legit subject
Keep: AfD is not for cleanup.
Keep: "Can't vote to keep unless you fix it yourself", not a valid reason to delete
Keep: So many sources on the page

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incest in popular culture

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

What little referencing there is is not directly related to "in popular culture" and mostly fails RS anyway. This leaves us with a massive screed of synthesis and OR masquerading as an encyclopdia article. Fails V OR N and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really interesting article. Just made a small contribution myself. Course it needs to be taken in hand. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that's not a good rationale for keeping. See WP:INTERESTING. — Scott • talk 11:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I meant interesting in the sense it makes no mention of Ovid's Byblis and Myrrha narratives per WP:CLUE. I just think that's a real sign of class in a scholarly article devoted to incest in erotic fiction and the article should be kept for that reason alone. If anyone does care to make the relevant edits however, I'll be the first back with a Delete recommendation on the grounds it's a load of shite. Can't be fairer than that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is quite notable as there are numerous books about it. Here's a selection:

Close Relationships: Incest and Inbreeding in Classical Arabic Literature
Nature's Ban: Women's Incest Literature
Incest and the Literary Imagination
The Politics of Survivorship: Incest, Women's Literature, and Feminist Theory
Everybody's Family Romance: Reading Incest in Neoliberal America
Violation of Taboo: Incest in the Great Literature of the Past and Present
Forbidden Fruit: a study of the incest theme in erotic literature
Patriarchy and Incest from Shakespeare to Joyce
Incest and the English Novel, 1684-1814
Accidental Incest, Filial Cannibalism, & Other Peculiar Encounters in Late Imperial Chinese Literature
The German Bildungsroman: Incest and Inheritance

Andrew (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete The referencing certainly needs to be improved but this is a notable topic given the number of academic texts that have been written on the subject. It would be better rewritten as prose but I fear that is an almost impossible task to carry out given the diversity of the material. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete. A rewrite is impossible given the size of the article and the referencing required. Tearing it down and starting again seems the only way forward. Philg88 ^♦talk 18:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons given by Spartaz. The issue here is not that the topic itself is without merit; clearly it has some. The issue is that this list is completely out of control. Look at the first AfD and you'll see that it has been completely out of control for at least seven years, meaning that all the "keep but tidy up" votes from back then were absolutely pointless, and any similar votes this time around will be equally pointless. When this article was nominated for deletion in July 2007, it was 43 KB in size. How big is it now? 159 KB. If efforts to reform the list failed - and they did, otherwise we wouldn't be here - when it was literally a quarter of the size it is today, who in their right mind would think that anything can be done about it now? It's time to face the fact that there is no way to rescue this article. None. It needs to be burned to the ground and started again, using sources of the type listed above by Andrew. — Scott • talk 11:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Transgressive fiction to the See also section, which I expect is the kind of heavy duty article you would like to see the article being rewritten as. At present Incest in fiction redirects to the article (i.e. this one under discussion here). It seems to me there's scope to write an article of the sort you would like to see under that article name. What proportion of Wikipedia could reasonably be called "popular"? Getting on for half or more I would say. Like it or not, that's just the way it is, and I don't have any problem with it, nor with these "in popular culture" articles in general. So long as notability is established in the lead and reliable sources are quoted for the material, I don't see what the issue is. The article doesn't need rewriting. Granted it needs improvement to reach Wikipedia standards, but that can be achieved with editing WP:SOFIXIT. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "nobody has fixed the grotesque problems with this article in the seven years since it survived AfD on the condition of being fixed, during which time it has quadrupled in size" is proving difficult to understand? — Scott • talk 19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a personal attack. You are patronising me and saying I'm stupid, and that's especially irritating when what you say about the last AfD is simply not true: the result was simply "The result was Keep", a reflection of the roughly 2:1 support for the article, whatever its defects. For what it's worth I do get the points raised here, but they were raised before and nothing has really changed except perhaps the contributions from overseers at Jimbo's Talk page. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As an "in popular culture" article, this article is dependent upon a clear definition of what is and is not part of popular culture. Unfortunately popular culture is a dynamic and highly subjective entity that forces editors to employ some form of "I know it when I see it" test to determine what is or is not part of popular culture. This means that inclusion of items into the list is either based upon some form of original research or else is virtually unbounded due to any drive-by editor with an idiosyncratic view point being able to add their personal favorite to the list. --Allen3 ^talk 12:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Time to blow it up. This is a blatant TV Tropes article, and there's almost nothing salvageable. It would be better to delete it and start over again from scratch. Even if it's kept, it's going to require a complete rewrite, so I don't really see the point in keeping it. For one thing, deletion would reduce the risk of someone edit warring to keep in all that original research under the argument that "it's useful" or "it's interesting". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above it is certainly a notable subject, Just needs better sourcing and perhaps prosing?. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you volunteering to find sources for each of the 450+ items in this list? Because if you're not, we're far beyond the point of "somebody can fix it". — Scott • talk 17:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope .... On that note changed to Delete .... Probably should'nt !vote per ITSINTERESTING!, As much as it is interesting I don't see the list being sourced anytime this year ... or 5 years later sadly!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Beatles' influence on popular culture likewise consists of hundreds of snippets of information and has just 22 citations. Of course you wouldn't have the slightest chance of getting that article deleted, although the arguments you cite here are just as valid there. In reality there's no need to cite most of the assertions here, verifiability is easily accomplished simply by turning to the work cited (a review perhaps, or its own wiki article) and checking that what is asserted for it is matter of fact true. Just as there is a genuinely encyclopaedic article for the Beatles, so is there scope for a genuinely encyclopaedic article for Incest in Fiction. Since you're proposing a total re-write, why not just write it under that article name and allow this one to coexist? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Various things wrong here. Firstly, with the Beatles example you've just moved from an INTERESTING argument to an OTHERSTUFF argument. Secondly, I am not proposing a total re-write. I am proposing a total re-write preceded by the complete removal of this article as it currently exists. In other words, that the current state of this article should not be tolerated any further. Thirdly, as to verifiability - as Allen3 points out in the discussion at Jimbo's talk, lists of this sort typically rely on editors making "I know it when I see it" determinations instead of providing sources, which is a recipe for disaster of the precise sort demonstrated by the parlous state of this article. — Scott • talk 19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm proposing a total re-write of the article Incest in fiction which currently redirects here, while allowing the current article to coexist. What's "wrong" with that? We just happen to differ. Are you say it's wrong to have a differing opinion from you? I don't really follow. There's already a scholarly article Transgressive fiction about this kind of fiction. If you want to produce a more scholarly account of incest in fiction in particular then write it. It's plain from the way this article was introduced at Jimbo's Talk page that you think the article is a load of shite, but it was introduced in the first place as an example of the kind of popular article that a group of people who congregate at Jimbo's page think shouldn't be tolerated on their encyclopaedia. Merely to dissent there is to put yourself forward for an inquisition as happened to me yesterday evening, and that's elitism. That's the agenda and I don't want this project to degenerate into elitism. I think people voting here who allow themselves to be influenced by your view of what's right and wrong should be aware of the agenda behind it. As for INTERESTING reread my satire at the top introducing all this. Do you think perhaps that happens to you quite a lot for some reason or other? The addition I made to this article (Edith Wharton's Beatrice Palmato) could not be more scholarly, not its citation (The New Yorker) more impeccable, and I can write the kind of article you would wish to see here in my sleep (conscious of a degree of ridicule given the subject matter). Take your agenda somewhere else please and stop patronising us. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh please, please, do enlighten "us" (who's that again?) about the true nature of my agenda. After that, why don't you go and produce that article you're dangling over us, oh great writer of our times, since it's so easy for you? Because, you know, you wouldn't want us to think that you're full of hot air. — Scott • talk 18:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        "Us" would be we happy band of brothers and sister gathered together here (erm ... in common cause) to improve this article. My core editing area is the visual arts. I could do fiction, but I don't really fancy doing an article on "incest in fiction". I've said everything I've wanted to say here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Largely unsourced compendium of trivia. This begs the question: incest in whose "popular culture" — this deal almost exclusively with the Anglo-American setting, omitting about 95% of the world. Unencylopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~, either prune extensively and keep or delete without prejudice for a restart from fresh are ok. According to Andrew Davidson's list above, which is no surprise at all, the subject is most likely notable and verifiable. But this article is not it, this one is a mostly indiscriminate list of "xxx in yyy". So, either prune the list, and keep and expand the intro, or delete with no prejudice to recreation, given there is not much of an intro to start with. - Nabla (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: changing from 'comment' to 'delete', after reading on. If kept it shoud be retargeted to Incest in Literature, and so on. - Nabla (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate as a proper, prose-based article. I agree with many that this article at present is nothing but a laundry list of trivia, failing many of the policies and guidelines noted in the opening statement. However, as Andrew notes with his list of books, the topic itself appears to be notable. Also: [28], [29], [30], [31]. Looks like a classic case of blow-it-up-and-rebuild. Reso lute 20:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the 2007 AFD I said "There is sufficient scholarly commentary on the subject of this article to allow the present content to be polished into a fine article. As is, it could use some polishing. "Incest in fiction" might be a better article name, and remove any or discussion of record albums. A taboo subject written about by classic Greek playwrights and Faulkner certainly is not trivial. Do not let unreasoned hatred of the words "in popular culture" remove a topic covered in college literature classes." The topic of incest in fiction is itself notable as shown by the secondary sources listed by Andrew above. "Delete it and rewrite it?" Nope, since it will inevitably have a listing of works featuring incest. Deletion is not part of the editing process. We are not "on deadline," so an article does not have to be perfect by some arbitrary date. . Secondary sources exist such as some of the ones Andrew listed can be used to reference examples mentioned in the article. Edison (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." There is nothing remotely encyclopaedic about a random contributor-complied list of supposed 'examples' of incest in popular culture. If an article on the subject is merited at all, it is one exclusively based on sources which analyse the topic in detail - and nothing in the present article remotely fits that description. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have many open-ended lists. The "unsourced" entries are sourced to the works referenced, and simply clicking on their links will generally turn up more specifics. I'm tired of Wikipedia being manipulated to only include things people happen to like the mention of. Wnt (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Things people happen to like: good articles. Things people happen to dislike: hundreds of kilobytes of unreferenced crap. Hope that helps! — Scott • talk 18:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison's rationale in particular; we do no favors to the state of knowledge when we wipe out lengthy materials on the off chance that someone might eventually write something else. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison and Arxiloxos -- the subject is most certainly notable and deleting it is not the right way to fix any problems the article may have. Adamh4 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the topic is definitely notable, but an article such as Incest in literature might be more appropriate. As it stands, this article has few merits, and would probably be best blown up. Simply adding a reference for each item still would not be enough, it has to be rewritten in prose with some coherent vision. James^x12345 21:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funny enough, I was just looking up Incest in literature and saw that it does not exist. This is not an article elaborating on incest in popular culture: why it is such a widespread topic, what kind of ideas are conveyed by it, what its expected effects are. It is a list. As a list it creates a connection between, for instance, Der Ring des Nibelungen and Fatal Frame IV: Mask of the Lunar Eclipse: What do they have in common? Right, they contain an example of an incestuous relationship. That's no difference to an article Alfred in popular culture of all works that happen to name one of their characters Alfred, and that's about the prime example of bad ideas for lists. Der Ring des Nibelungen and Fatal Frame IV: Mask of the Lunar Eclipse have nothing in common, and no secondary source can be found to claim they have. The list is thus unencyclopedic, original research, and indiscriminate. It should be deleted. --Pgallert (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellently put. — Scott • talk 22:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is obviously notable and legitimate subject that deserves a separate page. Yes, some parts of content are problematic. So what? Fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down, but not delete: The topic is a notable one, the problem that we currently have is that the page has too much trivial and unreferenced material. The problematic material should be removed in accordance with WP:V, however article deletion is not the solution, and we shouldn't delete the entire page due to a content issue. Stubbify the page if necessary, build the article up from scratch, and ensure that additions are properly sourced. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The administrator that closes this debate needs to bear in mind, when assessing the comments that say "fix it", how nothing at all happened seven years ago when the first AfD closed as "keep" on the basis of identical comments. Likewise, the people posting those comments need to back them up with some explanation of just who's going to be doing that fixing, because I sure don't see anyone here volunteering to do it themselves. — Scott • talk 10:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice straw man, but nobody is suggesting there is a deadline. — Scott • talk 12:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. You clearly haven't understood anything I or the other "delete" voters have been saying here. — Scott • talk 13:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have. I suggest you read WP:AGF, as you are lacking. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. It's your reading comprehension skills that I'm bringing into question, not your good faith. — Scott • talk 14:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have read it. Obviously you're having trouble grasping that. Oh dear indeed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nowhere in this scintillating conversation that I said that you hadn't read something. You're admirably demonstrating my point about your apparent problem with reading comprehension. Are we having fun yet? — Scott • talk 18:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t insult your intelligence by explaining it you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep - Notable, legit subject, not sure what the beef is here? BMK (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable list of entries that relate to a notable topic. AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the entries are notable, that's why they have blue links. However, that they are notable in this context, i.e. for their featuring of an incestuous episode, has nowhere been shown, particularly not in the few references that the list currently has. The topic itself is also notable, as even most of the 'delete' !voters have admitted. However, the topic is not covered at all in this list which is just an endless stream of examples. 400+ examples without even the attempt of an explanation does not convey any knowledge, and is not encyclopedic but a WP:COATRACK for irrelevant material. --Pgallert (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the arguments above make a good case that the article is in bad shape as it currently stands. However, "the article is in bad shape" is not a reason for deletion; it's a reason to fix the article. Furthermore, "you can't vote to keep the article unless you fix it yourself" is not a valid reason to delete. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's saying that either. What is being said is "voting to keep on the basis that somebody will fix it was proven to be a completely erroneous assumption seven years ago, so why are you doing it again now?" — Scott • talk 18:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could pull your finger out Scott and do it yourself, but I guess that's too difficult for you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you really do suck at reading. Otherwise you would have seen at the top of this page where I wrote there is no way to rescue this article. — Scott • talk 12:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, too hard for you to help. I knew it. Well done you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I love that you're taking my own point and repeating it as if that's some sort of victory for you. Yes, finding reliable sources for 450+ statements about books, films, television and movies that I haven't read or seen is too hard and I do not have any intention whatsoever of trying. Of course, now you've claimed the moral high ground. You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk? Go forth and salvage, and show me up for the lazy, terrible human being that I am. But I won't hold my breath waiting. — Scott • talk 17:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will, as soon as this is closed as keep. Now repeat that back to me so I know you've understood it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, but I will have a chuckle at your trying to bluff me. Have a great day. — Scott • talk 19:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will, son. And you have a great day doing whatever the fuck it is you do around here. Nothing by the looks of it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love, love, love it when someone gets steamed enough to call me "son" and throw a dick-measuring challenge into the deal. I can guarantee you that my day gets better every time you reply here. Kisses! — Scott • talk 21:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steamed up? Haha, only in your little mind. If it's serious, then get fixing the article. Oh wait, we've already established you don't have the skills for that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the sight of an internet tough guy getting his bluff called. — Scott • talk 11:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chortle. Comedy gold from Martin. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, hypothetically, what would it take to fix this article? Personally I would keep the see-also, the categories, the first sentence of the lead, and a few examples that are actually notable for their incest part of the plot. Thinking of Oedipus the King and Der Ring des Nibelungen again. That would leave me with an unreferenced stub. Then I would probably consult some of the books mentioned by Andrew above and write a more decent stub. I just fear if anyone did that, they would be reverted for removal of "encyclopedic" content. That's why it is valuable to determine right here that the vast majority of the existing content is not encyclopedic. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps we could begin by starting up a lead paragraph that introduces the topic with a full explanation, nuking the entire dot point list for now, and starting up sections for prose paragraphs. If there are any entries that can be cited, they should be written in prose, explaining why that case is notable, rather than simply being listed. That said, I'd rather this page have most of its sections blanked and then worked on, rather than the entire page actually deleted; it would be helpful to be able to look back at the article revision history for things that may potentially be referenced upon doing a few Google searches, and you can't do that if the page is deleted. The majority of these entries are unverifiable, but they can be reintegrated into prose if sources are found, and if they can be shown to be notable examples worthy of actually mentioning. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep : Clearly there was no need of the Afd. So many sources on the page, and information. OccultZone (Talk) 18:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list, as there is not much value to a long unsourced list of popular (and serious) fiction that happens to have a certain plot element, it's not an encyclopedic way to present information. However, the subject itself is notable, and whether a new article is built out of snippets from this one or entirely from scratch, any deletion should be without prejudice to recreation as an encyclopedic non-list article. Examples are fine, but this is one of those things where a comprehensive list becomes impossible to maintain. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject is worthy of an article. This, however, is not that article. --Carnildo (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another mishmash conglomeration of every mention we can find of a topic in popular media. These articles aren't encyclopedic and they shouldn't be encouraged. If we can't present the material from an encyclopedic standpoint, summing up the collective knowledge into a cohesive, prose article, we shouldn't bother having an article on the topic. This article reads like a set of barebones, unpruned notes and keeping it around for years without any cleanup just reinforces the point that bad writing encourages more bad writing. Either trim it down 95% or trim it down 100%; I would prefer the latter but wouldn't object to the former. Scott and NinjaRobotPirate put up good arguments up above and I fully agree with what they say as well. Them From Space 23:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete unsalvageable in it's current format. Reprovision as Incest in literature. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TNT, with no prejudice against recreation from scratch as something like Incest in Literature.--Staberinde (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Massively notable subject, as shown by sources listed by Andrew Davidson and others. The article has problems? Then it needs to be fixed, not deleted. I want to remind anyone linking the (quite bad) essay WP:TNT that our deletion policy asks us to avoid deleting what can be fixed by editing; cfr. WP:ATD. I see no problems that can be fixed only by outright deletion here, and a lot of useful material for a more compact and still comprehensive article. That the article hasn't been fixed until now is not a reason to delete it; we do not have a deadline, we are an eternal work in progress. That someone hasn't fixed it in seven years does not mean someone won't ever fix it. Also entries, while not technically sourced, are practically sourced to the books/artworks they talk about, even if they don't have a little footnote repeating this -yes, it's primary sourcing, it is not awesome, but different from "unsourced". Finally, people stating this is not encyclopedic should be reminded that it is a circular argument (follow the link), basically not different from "I don't like it here". --cyclopia ^speak! 13:53, 3 June 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 Simcoe County District School Board (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). --BDD (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Morrison Elementary School

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

NN school through grade 8. We don't generally keep stand-alone articles for such schools. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability for lack of significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Can be listed at Simcoe County District School Board. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PhilG. No reason for this school to have it's own page, just like all other elementary schools with no specific notability in the world. Adamh4 (talk) 13:57, 27 May 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. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David D. Hahn

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

Peripheral figure in a scandal. If he were alive, this would clearly be a BLP deletion. I think it qualifies under similar grounds of NOT NEWS even now. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Adamh4 (talk) 13:58, 27 May 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 without prejudice against speedy re-nomination. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 14:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kokoda Track Foundation

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

Non notable and obviously a big COI problem- article states "Our Work" etc. Lixxx235 (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per above --Lixxx235 (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Keep without prejudice- article has been significantly improved, but could use a lot of work, I can see this article being relisted in a month though. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 14:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd declined restoring this when it came up at WP:REFUND and I had been concerned about the lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. It was initially deleted as copyright infringement and it's restored because the content was given up as fair use, but little to no of the promotional concerns were dealt with. As far as coverage goes, there really isn't any. This news story about one of the people involved is really the best that is out there. Everything else is either primary, trivial, or seems to be based mostly or entirely on press releases. I wish it was otherwise since they do seem to do good, noble work, but we can't keep articles because it'd be nice to do so- we have to have established notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Having edited the Kokoda Track article in the past, I happened to notice this AfD for a somewhat related article linked from there. I believe WP:NOTABILITY is sufficiently established by coverage in independent secondary sources – I'm seeing about a dozen journal articles here at Google Scholar, plus quite a few more at Google Books, mostly covering the KTF's role in sustainable/ecotourism along the track in PNG. It appears that much of the promotional content has been excised and I did some Wikification and expansion of the article. It still needs work, but I think it's worth retaining. Mojoworker (talk) 10:12, 1 June 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. --BDD (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelio F. Rodriguez

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

This article has been tagged for several years but despite being given this ample time it still fails to assert notability under WP:BIO. Wavehunter (talk) 09:22, 17 May 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 May 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Del. No claim to notability WP:A7 --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also fails WP:NMODEL because he fails all criteria:

Entertainers

Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment

Subject lacks all crit as previously stated

 --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not know if he is actually notable, but as the owner of what may be a notable venue, there is at least a reasonable indication of importance, so speedy deletion is not applicable. I removed the a7 tag. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 20 May 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, czar ♔ 04:46, 26 May 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. --BDD (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandile Nzuza

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

Seems to fail notability criteria for artists. Basically he's a talented promising young artist not yet out of art college. Some coverage used as cites, but is it sufficient? I doubt it at this point, much as I wish Sandile Nzuza continued success. Mabalu (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article previously speedy-deleted as promotional, contributed from a WP:SPA account. The given references are from a dealership in emerging artists, and an online article which uses the first person. No evidence found that the subject meets the notability criteria at this point. AllyD (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability doesn't come from a listing by a commercial gallery selling the artist's work, and l see no evidence that he meets WP:ARTIST. Language like claims that his "creative ability and technical genius has been apparent making him stand out from the crowd" indicate that the purpose of this article is promotional. An extensive unreferenced quotation from the artist violates policy. Perhaps some day, this artist will be notable, but not yet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 26 May 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. --BDD (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Content

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

Obscure neologism. Article seems to be part of "EndPlay" company marketing Bhny (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found no independent reliable sources that use the term as it's meant here. (There are many other uses of the term, particularly in physics; there's an unrelated company called Quantum Content, and other writers invent their own independent definitions). The person who coined the phrase wrote an editorial for Forbes, but this is not an independent reliable source. The Wikipedia article currently cites a number of sources all connected to the same person/company, including a press release and a marketing piece for a panel discussion, which are also not independent reliable sources. It's possible I overlooked references to this, because it's such a commonly used phrase in academic literature (e.g., on scholar.google.com or books.google.com) and in general, so if anyone finds any, please link them and I'll reconsider.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as a WP:NEOLOGISM. There are definitions all over the map (in physiology?), but this particular one is the least worthy of an unnotable bunch. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 26 May 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. I hate to close an AfD with this little participation, but it's already been relisted twice, so I'm treating this as if it were an uncontested PROD. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ballers

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable short-lived 2007 TV series, with one April 7 Reuters article based entirely on an April 6 BET promotional press release, which is obviously not independent of the subject. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources for stand-alone article. (Note: previous "Ballers" AFD had to do with a different topic.) -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 May 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, czar ♔ 22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Another of one of many BET 'two months and out' talk show efforts. Note the "weak" as I wasn't able to view BET locally until 2011 (!!) so I can't relay if I remember if the show had actual notability outside of academically. Nate • (chatter) 06:42, 17 May 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, czar ♔ 03:25, 26 May 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 R5 (band). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louder Tour

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

Deproded by creator, my concern was that this fails Wikipedia:Notability, and creator defense that "This article shouldn't be deleted because the sources given are the band's actual and official website, therefore, it is a valid source material. The other source included is the official fan network, meaning it is also valid." doesn't seem to address this. Also, can anybody suggest where Wikipedia:Notability (concert tours) should redirect? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. A redirect might be worth considering. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to R5 (band) until proper sources arrive. Deletion is not needed, since band is clearly notable, and leaving existing content would be helpful to somebody trying to get sources. --Rob (talk) 03:07, 16 May 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, czar ♔ 03:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCONCERT TOUR, as there isn't a single independent reliable source, much less the multiples required. While R5 is notable, that does not make each of their tours notable, or indeed any of them. (The band sources aren't independent, and the fan source isn't reliable by Wikipedia standards. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect per BlueMoonset. There is no value in a redirect as "London tour" is ambiguous and, as we see, non-notable. --Bejnar (talk) 23:56, 4 June 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 00:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Hoffmann

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

This article was created in German and listed at WP:Pages needing translation into English. I translated it and added a couple of references, but I can find very little about this actor, and he does not appear to have been in sufficient major productions to satisfy the specific notability criteria for actors. It should be noted that the article was created with two references about the forthcoming Grzimek film, but these are mere name checks (and misspell his last name 'Hofmann'), and that although both his online résumé and the article claim that his role in Shahada, Samir, was a major one, I can't find any independent mention of it or of his being in the film. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i reviewed your translated article. I can prove most of the facts. There is a problem about the not-mentioning in the movie shahada, cause he changed his screen name. Looking up his pictures jerry hoffmann is the same like jeremias acheampong! So, no need for deletion! Alisson335 16:18, 10 May 2014

An IP editor has claimed the same thing, but we need a 3rd-party reference saying that for him to be able to get credit for the film role (It seems "Samir" = "Sammi"?). Have you found one? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many different credits that spell the name both 'samir' and 'sammi'. http://www.berlinale.de/external/de/filmarchiv/doku_pdf/20103879.pdf On the webpage of the movie they also call him both ways: http://www.shahada-der-film.de/info.html Just add the 'born Jeremias Acheampong' to make all the references clear and easy to connect to one actor. (User talk:Prof Donald B) 1:50, 11 May 2014

Comment: That does have both Samir and Sammi, thanks! But can you find a reference to his having changed his professional name from the one credited there to Jerry Hoffmann? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 2013 he has been selected as a talent of the berlinale. They both present him under hoffmann and have a reference to 'shahada'. They are very selective and must have double checked, also shahada was premiered in their own competition. Also there are pictures mentioning both names http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/HORCu95LjOk/60th+Berlin+Film+Festival+Shahada+Premiere/Q9fWaQwu5OT/Jerry+Hoffmann http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Jerry+Hoffmann/60th+Berlin+Film+Festival+Shahada+Premiere/FzjVMlXQG45 http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/HORCu95LjOk/60th+Berlin+Film+Festival+Shahada+Premiere/Q9fWaQwu5OT/Jerry+Hoffmann (User talk:Prof Donald B) 23:12, 12 May 2014

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:33, 18 May 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, czar ♔ 03:24, 26 May 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) 23:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nutri Ventures Corporation

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

it is fairly obvious advertisement, and poorly written. Badger2424 (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading about different deletion processes, I decided to nominate this article for deletion. That is why you may see that I had previously nominated this for Speedy Deletion and other processes. If that is still active, could someone message me on my talk page about how to delete this? Thanks! Badger2424 (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure where I stand on this yet. I found this HuffPost article that talks briefly about the company, but I don't think it would qualify as "significant coverage" per the general notability guideline. I also found this source and this one but again, it seems like these are passing mentions. (They can be translated via Google translate.) So far I don't think enough information has been provided in the article to demonstrate that it meets WP:CORP either. Maybe some more info could be gleaned from the Portuguese Wikipedia here? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I ran into issues when searching for sources for the television show. I searched only under "Nutri Ventures", so hits for the company did come up with the show mention. However they were the same as the ones for the show: mostly press releases and unusable sources. If the article for the television show is kept, I'd recommend redirecting there since that's literally the only thing this company is known for and seems to be its sole reason for existing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 10 May 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, czar ♔ 16:59, 18 May 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, czar ♔ 03:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is not sourced at all, and is very poorly worded. Johnny338 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laukkai Drugs Elimination Museum

AfDs for this article:

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

Last Afd was 6 years ago and I think there is now better processes on AfDs. the article has not been improved and my own search finds WP mirrors or 1 line mentions in lists of Burmese musems. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding much at all on this. Only reference in the article is the museum's website. Appears to fail all applicable notability standards. Safiel (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 3 June 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 Jannat. Interested users can merge using the page history, and there's no need to delete outright this plausible search term. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hob Emtelak

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

Delete or Merge with Jannat. Unsourced article about a studio album by Jannat, with no indication of why it would need a separate article. The only reference is about the artist, Jannat, not the album. Thomas.W ^talk 15:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:23, 26 May 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. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Zwicky 23

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Not visible to the naked eye, not in a catalogue of note, and no significant coverage in studies. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yup, fails GNG and NASTRO. Pretty little galaxy, at least from a distance. --Bejnar (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:22, 26 May 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. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makaan

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

Article about a subject that isn't notable per WP:NBOOKS. Full of vague and grand claims, no references given. Mikeblas (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems like someone's vanity page. No sources. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 19:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 May 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, czar ♔ 18:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:17, 26 May 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. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Memorabilia (novel)

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

Can't find any reviews or third-party coverage; this book doesn't meet WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 19:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing out there to show that this meets notability guidelines and is anything other than your standard self-published, non-notable book. It was originally a redirect to Souvenir, but I can't really see where that'd be a viable redirect given that it's a bit redundant to just "memorabilia". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:55, 11 May 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, czar ♔ 18:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:17, 26 May 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. --BDD (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Morrison

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

Procedural nomination, Was proposed for deletion under BLPPROD with the following in edit summary: Proposed for deletion per no sources, WP:N and WP:NOT Since the article was created in 2009, it is ineligible for BLPPROD. In general I think it is probably a COI article with a whole lot of name dropping. kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like a badly-written CV. No refs at all and a search doesn't turn up anything useful (though this is difficult as the name is relatively common). GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:16, 26 May 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arena rock

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

I have put Arena rock under consideration for deletion for several reasons. First of all, arena rock is consistently being placed in infoboxes on 1980s rock bands (Journey, Survivor, etc.) when it is not a genre and should not be used as such. It's not a radio format either, and it's defined as bands "using a more commercially oriented and radio-friendly sound, with highly-produced music that includes both hard rock numbers and power ballads, both often employing anthemic choruses." This describes hard rock and pop rock and even glam metal fairly well, so I don't really see the point of the article. Most popular rock bands from the 1970s onward have played in arenas and stadiums, anyway, so the term is kinda redundant. And WP:WINAD and WP:NOPAGE seem to indicate (to me, anyway) that this article is not notable enough to have its own article. Johnny338 (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course, as the topic is indisputably notable, and the current coverage goes well beyond a dictionary definition. The very first reference, a book published by the surely reliable University of California Press, devotes an entire chapter to the contrast between arena rock and punk rock. Misuse as an infobox genre is no reason whatsover to delete the article. As for the claim that "most" rock bands from the 1970s on played arenas and stadiums, that is simply incorrect. The large majority of working rock bands never played venues that large. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have made clear that most popular rock bands from the 1970s on played arenas and stadiums. I've edited it to make more sense. I just think that the info in this article could easily be incorporated into the Rock music article. That's just my two cents, though. Regardless, thanks for your view! Johnny338 (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made the whole genre thing more clear. Johnny338 (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly hint: When you refactor your deletion rationale after another editor has responded in detail, it makes the debate more difficult to follow. Perhaps you might want to explain why you think that a topic which has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article? The Rock music article by necessity must be a broad overview article, and it is appropriate to have many sub articles. Of course, Arena rock is not a genre, but rather a characteristic type of performance venue for a broad musical style. That does not make it a less notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I'll try to avoid that in the future. Anyway, my reasoning is that Arena rock, as you said, describes the venue the artists perform in, and is not unified by any one style. As I said, most major rock bands (or major artists in any genre in general) have played in stadiums or arenas at one time or another. This article describes radio-friendly music that Arena rock artists make. However, hard rock, soft rock, pop rock and glam metal cover all of the artists that are listed under the Arena rock article. Plus, the article doesn't really make sense. You don't necessarily have to put out radio-friendly music in order to sell out arenas. Look at artists like Rage Against the Machine or Nine Inch Nails. It just doesn't seem like a necessary article on Wikipedia to me. The articles I mentioned above cover all the styles of arena rock bands, and it just doesn't make sense to have an article on something based mostly on performance venue. Why, then, don't we have an article titled "Underground rock" or "Club rock" to cover more obscure rock bands? Johnny338 (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any shortcomings in an existing article about a notable topic should be resolved by normal editing to improve the article, as opposed to deletion of the article. If you have reliable sources that say those two bands are arena rock acts despite not issuing "radio-friendly" music, then please add that to the article. The editors at University of California Press thought that it made enough sense to publish a book whose first chapter was devoted to arena rock vs. punk rock. That makes it notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Seems like another unnecessary article which is mostly nonsense. 172.56.12.18 (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)— 172.56.12.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The inconvenience of a subject for article infoboxes is not grounds for deletion. The multiple reliable sources discussing the phenomenon clearly indicate that this is a notable subject and that is the main criteria for articles on Wikipedia. How editors use this elsewhere is not really an issue here.--SabreBD (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If reliable sources discuss something in detail, then Wikipedia should have an article about it, even if the subject of the article is self-contradictory and doesn't really make sense. --Λeternus ^(talk) 13:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list of references shows me that the subject meets WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A WP:TROUT for the OP. The topic is covered in many books, one of which is Arena Rock, published in 2001 by the Hal Leonard Corporation, a well-known music publisher. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon second thought, I have come to my senses and realized that the confusion over the article is no reason to list this for deletion. I just have one question: Can someone tell me how to withdraw my nomination for deletion? I can't seem to find any instructions on it. Johnny338 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A term and topic that has received significant coverage, whether or not it is "redundant". An encyclopedia should describe the world as it is, not as we think it should be. The fact that it overlaps topics such as hard rock and pop rock, and the idea that it is "not a real genre", are irrelevant. — Gwalla | Talk 23:57, 26 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Health Level 7

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

This page is a about a list of standards which is the product of Health Level Seven International. It was split from that article.

Practically all of the information in this article is self-referenced to the company's own website. This article fails WP:GNG now that it is no longer connected to the company article.

Actually, what ought to happen is that all or most of this content should be deleted, then the content at the organization article should be copypasted back here. Then all self-referenced organization content should be deleted too. This is the page which has article history, so it ought to be kept. Perhaps this article should be moved to the organization name so that the history can be kept... I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is an 'open standards' organization (like Wikipedia itself, or Linux), which creates standards using a collaborative process. Hence, the central/focal source of information is the organization itself. Wikipedia may discourage this as a source - it will take some time to locate other reliable sources. HL7 standards are used widely around the world, and each of them probably deservies its own page (some of these standards already have their own page). I did perform the split mentioned above, with the intent to improve both resulting pages. Tertius3 (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tertius3 On Wikipedia "notability", which is the standard for inclusion into Wikipedia, has to be established for an article to remain in Wikipedia. Could you please identify the best 2-3 sources which discuss Health Level 7 so that they can be reviewed here? If at least that many sources cannot be identified which discuss this topic then it would be difficult to argue that this article should be kept. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry so, a google scholar search on HL7 doesn't suffice (29k articles), or a scholar search for 'HL7 standard' (the subject of this page) with 18K search results? Specific examples are aplenty: Healthcare IT news (a US magazine) [32] 2100 hits, 5500 hits on HealthIT.gov (a US government site) [33]. CDA, one of the HL7 standards has 4800 hits on that website alone. The UK e-health insider website has plenty of hits as well [34]. Aamazon has 7000 books that mention HL7 [35]. To me notability is not an issue .. can't see the tree for the forest when it comes to the available information, actually, which is why it makes sense to have a summary on Wikipedia ;-) Tertius3 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tertius3 That is exactly what I am saying - those things do not matter with regard to inclusion in Wikipedia. After many years of having tens of thousands of discussions exactly like this, the kind of evidence you presented has been consistently been established as not meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria and the kind of evidence I requested has been. You could look into the deletion discussion archives to confirm this for yourself, and you will get opinions from other Wikipedians here. It might happen that some of them tell you what I am telling you. Please consider trying to present what I requested. If you really wish to do something different, then just speak up and whatever you want to do I will help. If you do not understand why things are the way they are, then ask. There are reasons and documentation for absolutely everything. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I think thousands of mentions on scholar is going to count as significant coverage in secondary sources to most people. The top hit for my search is an article in Progress in Standardization in Healthcare Informatics titled Health Level 7 - A Protocol for the Interchange of Healthcare Data by W. Ed Hammond of Duke University Medical Center. Several down is Development of a Provisional Domain Model for the Nursing Process for Use within the Health Level 7 Reference Information Model, by Goossen, Ozbolt, Coenen et al in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. The list goes on. This subject has extensive coverage in the relevant academic literature. In case it's not clear, that's a keep. GoldenRing (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, keep/delete opinions are conventionally listed in bold as the first word in an unindented bulleted paragraph; you may want to do that, to make sure it's noticed, and just reference your comment above, but that's up to you. On the search results question, I do not agree that thousands of mentions of a topic in independent reliable sources ensures notability criteria are met; while it's pretty likely, notability still requires significant coverage, and if all the the mentions are trivial mentions one-sentence mentions, I would still reject a topic. Part of the reason WP:GNG wants significant coverage in independent reliable sources is so that there's some independent material to rely on to write the article. Agyle (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd made it clear that the two articles I'd picked out from the first page of those thousands of results constitute significant coverage in the secondary literature, but since it seems I hadn't: In my opinion, the two articles I cited above constitute significant coverage in the secondary literature. Beyond that, I haven't bothered to look at any of the other several thousand papers that mention it. A cursory glance at their titles suggest that these two are not exceptional. GoldenRing (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, I'm sorry, my writing was not clear, only my first sentence above was meant to be directed toward you. My comment about thousands of references was intended to address Tertius3's search result counts, and assertion that they signify notability. Agyle (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are sufficient independent reliable sources to establish notability and provide for at least limited coverage of this topic. For example, see the PDF linked on this web page, and some of the references it cites. The current Wikipedia article is deficient in several ways, including over-reliance on primary sources, but that is not grounds for deletion. To quote the AfD admin instructions at WP:BEFORE: "C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. 1. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."

I do want to note that I found very few independent reliable sources with significant coverage, though my search was not exhaustive. Most of the above search suggestions are critically flawed, failing to distinguish search results that refer to the HL7 standards rather than the HL7 organization, and even the search for "HL7 standards" was apparently done without putting the phrase in quotes, so it also failed to distinguish results referring to the standards. Also, most references to "HL7 standards" or "Health Level 7 standards" I checked in scholar.google.com were trivial, just mentioning in one sentence that a project used the HL7 standards, rather than providing useful information about HL7 standards that could be used in the Wikipedia article or that I'd count toward notability.

I also think a good case could be made for renaming this article as Health Level 7 (standards), and having Health Level 7 and Health Level Seven redirect to Health Level Seven International, as "Health Level 7" (whether proper or not) seems to refer to the organization more commonly than their standards in published literature. "HL7" may refer to the standard more than the organization. However, these issues seem beyond the scope of this AfD discussion. Agyle (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since my inline keep above has been criticised - please don't count it twice. The coverage in RS is not just present but extensive, not just significant but profound. GoldenRing (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge back to Health Level Seven International. The intricate detail can be purged as it is based mainly on primary sources and/or instructional in tone. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes the most sense to me, but AfD guidelines state "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Independent sources are available to "fix" the article: 1 2 3. Agyle (talk) 03:32, 26 May 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - HL7 is one of the main standards in the healthcare programming industry, and appears often on, say, job application requirements lists. Someone Googling what the heck "HL7" means on a job application, task requirements list, etc would absolutely expect to find out that it is a set of very notable, widely referenced international standards. They wouldn't expect or want to know about the organization that produced it. It would be like linking ASCII to the page on the American Standards Association - a standard is not at all the same thing as the organization that produced them, and in fact for most standards, the organization that wrote them is in most cases significantly less notable, whether you're talking ASCII (ASA), OGG (Xiph), OpenDocument (Oasis), HTML (W3C), TCP/IP (IETF), HL7 (Health_Level_Seven_International), or any other standard: people daily use and refer to the standards themselves, but rarely think of (or even know about) the standards bodies behind them. Standards stand alone as notable. Just because the HL7 standards happen to be named after the organization that crafted them does not mean they should share an article: Wikipedia has a fine set of tools for distinguishing homonyms. DewiMorgan (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree - it is unfortunate that the organization and its standards bear the same name, but most persons using the name HL7 are referring to the standard, and not to the organization. Some of HL7's standards already have their own individual page on WP, whereas others don't - such as HL7 version 2, which is probably the most commonly implemented standard created by the HL7 organization. I'm quite prepared to clean up and properly source the content of these pages, but that'll be on hold as long as this debate rages. No sense in editing a page if it's going to be deleted. Tertius3 (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tring Local History Museum

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

fails WP:ORG. a small local museum. I could find no indepth coverage. nothing in BBC. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best I've found in reliable sources is reference to the existence of the museum. There is no indication that the museum itself is notable. Longwayround (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two references in the article are both self-published. I did a quick search and couldn't find any other sources. A bunch of hits for travel guides, blogs, directories, but nothing in independent, reliable, sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 3 June 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.